The Gender Debate

[Boo Khaki]

9 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Just a reminder You can sound intelligent whilst also being a nasty bigot. 

I know I shouldn’t but I skipped through a some of the her interview with that horrible piece of shit and there’s a part where she is talking that trans people may say they are happier but there’s higher proportions of mental health/non-neurotypical trans people and therefore we should talk about that.  So f**k if there is, let people be happy.    It’s been said a million times but the repeated repackaged homophobia of the past is incredible.

As someone with an ASD diagnosis, this emerging 'trans people are all just misguided Neurodivergents' narrative confuses me. I mean, even if there is any truth to it, what exactly is the purpose of making this claim? Where are they going with it and why are GC's like a dog with a bone when it comes to autism? Are they seriously trying to suggest that ND people are incapable of making appropriate choices or somehow require saving from themselves?

Some ND people do have comorbid learning difficulties, but those people tend to already be well recognised, for obvious reasons. Those of us who don't are perfectly capable of making informed decisions, so this 'save them from themselves' pish needs to f**k off to the far side of f**k, and yes, it is eerily 'conversion therapy'ish.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

As someone with an ASD diagnosis, this emerging 'trans people are all just misguided Neurodivergents' narrative confuses me. I mean, even if there is any truth to it, what exactly is the purpose of making this claim? Where are they going with it and why are GC's like a dog with a bone when it comes to autism? Are they seriously trying to suggest that ND people are incapable of making appropriate choices or somehow require saving from themselves?

Some ND people do have comorbid learning difficulties, but those people tend to already be well recognised, for obvious reasons. Those of us who don't are perfectly capable of making informed decisions, so this 'save them from themselves' pish needs to f**k off to the far side of f**k, and yes, it is eerily 'conversion therapy'ish.

Perhaps these losers aren't satisfied were mere transphobia. I'd wager quite a few of these melts are of the opinion that "there was no such thing as autism in my day, you just got a slap from the teacher and it NEVER DID ME ANY HARM"

[Boo Khaki]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

Linehan seems pretty unhinged. I reckon with some minor effort he could be goaded onto P&B for some god-tier level piss-taking 

Well he appears on Mumsnet fairly often, and while he's got a wee band of obsequious fangirls over there, there are few of the more sane members who see right through his bullshit and don't hesitate to tell him to f**k right off and stop trying to crusade on the behalf of women who neither need his 'help', have never sought it, and don't even agree with the twat in the first place.

There's a hilarious irony in the fact that he's a white, noisy, opinionated middle-aged man, the posterchild for what most of the self-proclaimed 'feminists' spend all their energy ranting about, and yet it's the most abrasive and arsey 'radfems' of the lot who fall over themselves to grovel at his feet. At least the semi-sane ones recognise it and tell him to GTF.

He tends to hide in really dingy parts of the internet because he doesn't really cope well when people call his shite out and challenge him (he tends to run off elsewhere to bleat about how hard done by he is), so I doubt he'd last two minutes on here.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[King Ian]

9 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Just a reminder You can sound intelligent whilst also being a nasty bigot. 

I know I shouldn’t but I skipped through a some of the her interview with that horrible piece of shit and there’s a part where she is talking that trans people may say they are happier but there’s higher proportions of mental health/non-neurotypical trans people and therefore we should talk about that.  So f**k if there is, let people be happy.    It’s been said a million times but the repeated repackaged homophobia of the past is incredible.

She doesn't sound bigoted to me, and I suspect most would agree.

Not on here though.. shockingly enough 

I agree with your point about letting trans people be happy.  Miller isn't trying to make them unhappy though, and believes that the road we're now going down leads to not just unhappiness, but trauma , depression and irreversible harm in the long run.

[Boo Khaki]

5 minutes ago, King Ian said:

She doesn't sound bigoted to me, and I suspect most would agree.

Not on here though.. shockingly enough 

I agree with your point about letting trans people be happy.  Miller isn't trying to make them unhappy though, and believes that the road we're now going down leads to not just unhappiness, but trauma , depression and irreversible harm in the long run.

Well I might be misreading the room, what with just being a clueless autistic walloper after all, but she really doesn't seem all that thrilled about the prospect of some trans people having their lives made very slightly easier. It might not be intentional, but I suggest that if she had her way those people would be rather more unhappy.

[King Ian]

14 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Well I might be misreading the room, what with just being a clueless autistic walloper after all, but she really doesn't seem all that thrilled about the prospect of some trans people having their lives made very slightly easier. It might not be intentional, but I suggest that if she had her way those people would be rather more unhappy.

I certainly don't see autistic people as clueless or wallopers.  Going by interactions I've had, you guys can often be the most intelligent people around.

For me, Miller's opinions are driven not by hate, but by the long term welfare of people.  She sees what's happening and the resulting problems.

[Boo Khaki]

21 minutes ago, King Ian said:

I certainly don't see autistic people as clueless or wallopers.  Going by interactions I've had, you guys can often be the most intelligent people around.

For me, Miller's opinions are driven not by hate, but by the long term welfare of people.  She sees what's happening and the resulting problems.

Which are what, specifically?

There have been two public consultations regarding this reform bill. Elaine Miller had plenty of opportunity to plead her case. Evidently she, and those sharing her views, have completely failed to convince the parliament that there was any reason whatsoever why this bill should not progress as intended. From where I'm standing Miller and her ilk look like nothing more than a bunch of people who can not accept that they have lost this debate. They've failed to substantiate their argument, and they can't reconcile that there is nothing of substance to suggest that the 'majority' they contend they represent actually exists, and as a result of that they've resorted to the sort of histrionics and delusionary rhetoric that they accuse trans rights activists of.

Again, the litmus test of policy is electoral outcome, and evidently most people are more than happy to vote for parties who favour GRC legislation and Self-ID. Miller's stunt in the chamber reeks of impotent rage in the face of a democratic outcome she doesn't agree with. While I understand the frustration, it is emphatically the result of democracy in action, so I don't have any time whatsoever for this nonsense about the SG going rogue and pushing through legislation against the will of the Scottish people. That's yet one more claim that they make repeatedly in the face of the only evidence suggesting the opposite of the claim.

And as for this nonsense about 'MSP's protecting sex offenders over women and children' - If someone can honestly have a wee think about the implications of that, come back, and still claim they genuinely believe that elected MSP's prioritise sex-offenders, then I'm sorry, you need to go seek help for your mental health.

[Leith Green]

54 minutes ago, King Ian said:

For me, Miller's opinions are driven not by hate, but by the long term welfare of people. 

She and her pals (like Linehan) call themselves TERFs. 

It is pretty obvious, not least by their use of this term that they are not "driven by the long term welfare" of everyone.

[Detournement]

The Guardian article I linked a while back states the the sex split of children being referred to gender clinics has moved from 50/50 to 80/20 in favour of girls. 

That split is reminiscent of anorexia and is obviously due to changes in media concerning trans issues and girls clearly being more vulnerable to psychogenic conditions. 

[Clown Job]

This is what happens when you normalise the bigoted behaviour towards Trans people 

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Again, the litmus test of policy is electoral outcome, and evidently most people are more than happy to vote for parties who favour GRC legislation and Self-ID. 

Good policy is quite clearly not determined by electoral outcomes, or else you're claiming that the last 12 years of Tory government policies have been the correct course of action for the UK - rather than a complete omnishambles.

There's no evidence to suggest that GRA was even a politically salient issue at the last Holyrood election, so counting seats as a thumping mandate for this particular act lacks credibility.  

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Good policy is quite clearly not determined by electoral outcomes, or else you're claiming that the last 12 years of Tory government policies have been the correct course of action for the UK - rather than a complete omnishambles.

There's no evidence to suggest that GRA was even a politically salient issue at the last Holyrood election, so counting seats as a thumping mandate for this particular act lacks credibility.  

If you read back through the thread you'll see that wasn't really my point.

GC's are constantly claiming that they represent majority opinion, seemingly off the back of nothing more than a few polls. Now aside from the fact that I'm inherently sceptical about the validity of any public poll given that they're usually commissioned by someone or something with an agenda and a vested interest in a certain outcome, there are as many polls that suggest GC views are the minority as there are the opposite.

My point about GE results wasn't really so much about it being an indicator of good policy, as it was that it's really the only barometer of what the most vociferous GC protestors are claiming, i.e. that Self-ID is overwhelmingly unpopular, and that GC's represent the overwhelming majority of people who are ABSOLUTELY LIVID!"!!!!1111 about this. 

I agree with you that it simply isn't a particularly important issue for most, which is exactly the point I was making in response to these GC claims. Contrary to the picture they are painting, the only thing that could really be used as any objective measure of public opinion suggests that it's either nowhere near the burning issue GC's are claiming, or that if it is it simply isn't enough to prevent the 'majority' voting for pro-Self ID parties in any case.

So again, it's not about 'good' policy, it's about the fact that there is no objective evidence whatsoever that supports the GC lobby's claims about public attitudes, unless you put a lot of stock in some low sample size polls while simultaneously disregarding all the ones that contradict you.

[Leith Green]

14 minutes ago, virginton said:

There's no evidence to suggest that GRA was even a politically salient issue at the last Holyrood election, so counting seats as a thumping mandate for this particular act lacks credibility.

It was part of the SNP manifesto in the 2021 Holyrood election and all over the election materials - presumably because it had been on the table for them for ~ 4 years at that point?

The conservatives didnt mention it once in their manifesto, presumably as Douglas Ross and equality are not words one immediately associates (he was against same sex marriage when it was introduced into law, but is now apparently "all for it").

[Salt n Vinegar]

7 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

It was part of the SNP manifesto in the 2021 Holyrood election and all over the election materials - presumably because it had been on the table for them for ~ 4 years at that point?

The conservatives didnt mention it once in their manifesto, presumably as Douglas Ross and equality are not words one immediately associates (he was against same sex marriage when it was introduced into law, but is now apparently "all for it").

If it's any help in deciding how to think about the Scottish legislation, I understand that in a poll over 90% of Express readers think that Westminster should act to prevent Royal Assent. 

On Question Time, Robin Day used to say something like 'it's not scientific but it is interesting nonetheless'. That's what Express readers think. I'll leave it there. 

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

It was part of the SNP manifesto in the 2021 Holyrood election and all over the election materials - presumably because it had been on the table for them for ~ 4 years at that point?

The conservatives didnt mention it once in their manifesto, presumably as Douglas Ross and equality are not words one immediately associates (he was against same sex marriage when it was introduced into law, but is now apparently "all for it").

Well yes, it was 'salient' in the regard that it had been on the agenda since 2016, had already been through public consultation by the point of the 2021 SGE, so it's not as if this was pulled out of the hat at the last minute or somehow a result of 'stealth' legislation. There are plenty of us who have been following the progress of the bill right from day one because there is a professional interest in doing so if not a personal one. 

If the general public is/was largely ignorant of this, I'd suggest that's just in keeping with general public apathy towards all thing political that are more convoluted than SNP v Tory, Tory v Labour, UK v Indi.

Where I'm in agreement that it wasn't a 'salient issue', is that last part. If the public were ignorant of this before now, it's not for the reasons the GC lobby are trying to claim, i.e. backroom shenanigans and underhandedness, it's because the general public chose not to bother taking an interest in the issue. It's been progressed in full view of the public, on an inordinately long timescale and with constant requests for public participation at the consultation stage, so the 'nobody knew' thing is pish and simply doesn't wash. Nobody bothered because of indifference appears far more truthful, but that doesn't fit the narrative the opponents of the bill are running with.

[strichener]

12 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Well yes, it was 'salient' in the regard that it had been on the agenda since 2016, had already been through public consultation by the point of the 2021 SGE, so it's not as if this was pulled out of the hat at the last minute or somehow a result of 'stealth' legislation. There are plenty of us who have been following the progress of the bill right from day one because there is a professional interest in doing so if not a personal one. 

If the general public is/was largely ignorant of this, I'd suggest that's just in keeping with general public apathy towards all thing political that are more convoluted than SNP v Tory, Tory v Labour, UK v Indi.

Where I'm in agreement that it wasn't a 'salient issue', is that last part. If the public were ignorant of this before now, it's not for the reasons the GC lobby are trying to claim, i.e. backroom shenanigans and underhandedness, it's because the general public chose not to bother taking an interest in the issue. It's been progressed in full view of the public, on an inordinately long timescale and with constant requests for public participation at the consultation stage, so the 'nobody knew' thing is pish and simply doesn't wash. Nobody bothered because of indifference appears far more truthful, but that doesn't fit the narrative the opponents of the bill are running with.

If you are using lack of public opinion as an indicator consent then why wasn't there a free vote as there was for assisted suicide?

[Boo Khaki]

14 minutes ago, strichener said:

If you are using lack of public opinion as an indicator consent then why wasn't there a free vote as there was for assisted suicide?

Well generally speaking most parties whip for votes on manifesto promises, but as there had been open rebellion on this beforehand and those who chose to vote against or abstain were not subject to any punishment, it appears that it was tantamount to a free vote in any case.

I'm not going to pretend that there may not have been some MSP's who might have voted differently had it not been a whipped vote, but in the case of the Green contingent, no, they are universally united on this issue, I believe all the openly sceptical SNP MSP's did either vote against or abstain, so if there are more who would have joined them in a free vote you have to wonder why they've been signalling support for the bill at every juncture and voted for it if it really is such a bone of contention for them.

Conservatives did, apparently, allow a free vote, not sure what the official Labour line was but I believe it was whipped and they still had rebels. Lib Dems, again unsure, but they are pretty much in line with the Greens as being of one and the same mind.

So yes, there may have been a few MSP's who would have chosen to vote differently in a free vote, but I believe it would be no more than a handful at best and it would have made no difference to the outcome.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[Salt n Vinegar]

8 minutes ago, strichener said:

If you are using lack of public opinion as an indicator consent then why wasn't there a free vote as there was for assisted suicide?

Without wishing to enter too deeply into an exchange, i understand from earlier on that the gender issue was in the manifesto. (happy to be corrected.) I don't recall if assisted suicide was.  I think it's not unreasonable for Governments to "whip" votes on manifesto issues. If assisted suicide wasn't in the manifesto, a free vote might be quite normal?

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

It was part of the SNP manifesto in the 2021 Holyrood election and all over the election materials - presumably because it had been on the table for them for ~ 4 years at that point?

I don't recall the GRA being even remotely 'all over the election materials' produced by the SNP during the 2021 campaign. Indeed, it would be fucking mental if they had made that a flagship policy, rather than the economic and political aims of an independent Scotland. 

There are also plenty of manifesto proposals that are never enacted by the winning party - either because of a failure to grasp the nettle (replacing the council tax - SNP; House of Lords reform - Labour time immemorial), or because the party's manifesto pledge turned out to be a shite idea in government (creating a public energy provider backed by the SG). 

The perceived rights and wrongs of the GRA can be judged independently of the election outcome. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by vikingTON

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Well generally speaking most parties whip for votes on manifesto promises, but as there had been open rebellion on this beforehand and those who chose to vote against or abstain were not subject to any punishment, it appears that it was tantamount to a free vote in any case.

I'm not going to pretend that there may not have been some MSP's who might have voted differently had it not been a whipped vote, but in the case of the Green contingent, no, they are universally united on this issue, I believe all the openly sceptical SNP MSP's did either vote against or abstain, so if there are more who would have joined them in a free vote you have to wonder why they've been signalling support for the bill at every juncture and voted for it if it really is such a bone of contention for them.

Conservatives did, apparently, allow a free vote, not sure what the official Labour line was but I believe it was whipped and they still had rebels. Lib Dems, again unsure, but they are pretty much in line with the Greens as being of one and the same mind.

So yes, there may have been a few MSP's who would have chosen to vote differently in a free vote, but I believe it would be no more than a handful at best and it would have made no difference to the outcome.

I get all that, my comment was specifically regarding your reference to the lack of public dissent to the legislation.

The SNP were not sufficiently comfortable with their position that they allowed a free vote.  Regarding the assisted suicide bill, they stated at the time that as it was a matter of conscience for individual members.  A bill with far more implications than the one just passed.

You are right of course that the Government did not have the assisted dying in their manifesto and were clear that they did not support the right to die.  Take from that what you will about the SNP government's moral compass.