The Gender Debate

[welshbairn]

18 minutes ago, virginton said:

Risk to whom? 

If it's a convicted rapist being put in  a women's prison, it would be the other prisoners and staff, if it's a young drug dealer or someone being put in a men's prison, it would be her. It's been judged on a case by case basis in the same way across the UK for years, nothing has changed, and the numbers are tiny. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by welshbairn

[vikingTON]

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If it's a convicted rapist being put in  a women's prison, it would be the other prisoners and staff, if it's a young drug dealer or something being put in a men's prison, it would be her. It's been judged on a case by case basis in the same way across the UK for years, nothing has changed.

Nothing has changed, which is why the SG has been forced to intervene like a clown running across a minefield on two such cases within the Scottish prison system in the last ten days alone. Clearly a foolproof and effective system! These decisions aren't dropped down on stone tablets - they are made by humans acting within the context of their society. 

And it does in fact change the picture because once you accept the fundamental principle of self-ID, you do not get to magically switch it off when it is convenient for a government minister or a governing ideology to do so. Trans rights are after all human rights and a fundamental right like gender recognition applies as much to the most vile offenders in the prison system as they do to a 'young drug dealer'. 

The logical stance to take here from supporters of the GRA is that self-ID trumps the ultimately very low risk of exploitation. But the SG and many (not sure if all) supporters of GRA have been busy tieing themselves in knots instead.

Edited February 3, 2023 by vikingTON

[carpetmonster]

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

Nothing has changed, which is why the SG has been forced to intervene like a clown running across a minefield on two such cases within the Scottish prison system in the last ten days alone. Clearly an effective system! The decisions aren't dropped down on stone tablets - they are made by humans acting within the context of their society. 

And it does in fact change the picture because once you accept the fundamental principle of self-ID, you do not get to magically switch it off when it is convenient for a government minister or a governing ideology to do so. Trans rights are after all human rights and a fundamental right like gender recognition applies as much to the most vile offenders in the prison system as they do to a 'young drug dealer'. 

The logical stance to take here from supporters of the GRA is that self-ID trumps the ultimately very low risk of exploitation. But the SG and many (not sure if all) supporters of GRA have been busy tieing themselves in knots instead.

It doesn’t change the picture tho. Some trans people already have GRC’s and if they were sentenced to imprisonment would be subject to the same assessment as those without. The GRC itself isn’t being changed, just the parameters of obtaining one. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by carpetmonster

[parsforlife]

7 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Wasn't Oaksoft a fan of the emoji also?

It's almost certainly a zombie Oaksoft

5 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

They don't but neither do the SNP. Like I've said previously this is a divisive issue which should not have been tackled prior to independence. 

In terms of politics it's not really that divisive,  polls point to overwhelming support , its just been grabbed at by a handful of extremist bigots who have made alot of noise but not really gained much support.    

2 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

It wouldn't but it might make a difference to the independence support.

And it doesn't matter if people on here just dismiss the folk who will not support independence because of this issue as bigots, I still want the bigot vote to ensure we get independence. We need votes across the board and as far as I can see we are not increasing support for independence. As much of a clusterfuck as the UK is, we are still stuck at around 50/50.  Every vote counts.

Which is why I question the FM's motives bringing forward a divisive issue like this when we are allegedly trying to get a referendum this year.

This isn't a yes/no independence debate, this is an are you a scumbag yes/no?  and if you are a scumbag then I can't see how this influences your independence vote.  If every vote counts then catering to the vast majority who are not scum is surely more of a vote winner than trying to get the minority scum to vote for you?

Personally it would certainly make me more pro-union if the roles were reversed.

We also can't run a parliament on one issue, there's 131 mps + civil servants being payed to make the country better,  do we want them to do nothing without 100% support?

[welshbairn]

From the Irish experience a few more people might apply for a gender recognition certificate, but most don't. It doesn't give you many more rights, if any, other than changing your birth certificate. You can already choose your own preferred gender on passports and driving licenses. A GR certificate does not give you a pass into women's toilets, changing rooms, prisons or anywhere else.

[carpetmonster]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

From the Irish experience a few more people might apply for a gender recognition certificate, but most don't. It doesn't give you many more rights, if any, other than changing your birth certificate. You can already choose your own preferred gender on passports and driving licenses. A GR certificate does not give you a pass into women's toilets, changing rooms, prisons or anywhere else.

Even ‘changing’ your birth certificate is a bit of a misnomer; you’re given a GRC. Same way as my ‘birth certificate’ to anyone who was interested in it - employer, passport office, whoever -  is a Certificate from the Register of Adopted Children. My actual birth certificate that shows my biological parents and my name at birth, rather than my adoptive ones and what my name is now, is in a facility in Edinburgh and I’m the only one allowed to access it until (IIRC) 100 years from my date of birth. That GRC, however, ensures you can be married and buried as Steve rather than Stephanie, should you have one. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by carpetmonster

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

From the Irish experience a few more people might apply for a gender recognition certificate, but most don't. It doesn't give you many more rights, if any, other than changing your birth certificate. You can already choose your own preferred gender on passports and driving licenses. A GR certificate does not give you a pass into women's toilets, changing rooms, prisons or anywhere else.

The principle of self-ID enshrined within the GRA makes it impractical to gatekeep 'women's prisons'. The back of a fag packet, 'we've analysed the risk though!' stance will not stand up to serious legal scrutiny. In fact, it quite clearly isn't working already given the absolute state that the SG has got itself into. 

You can accept that very, very low risk as a necessary and acceptable cost of the policy, but pretending that it has zero impact is either a foolish argument or one offered in bad faith. 

[carpetmonster]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

The principle of self-ID enshrined within the GRA makes it impractical to gatekeep 'women's prisons'. The back of a fag packet, 'we've analysed the risk though!' stance will not stand up to serious legal scrutiny. In fact, it quite clearly isn't working already given the absolute state that the SG has got itself into. 

You can accept that very, very low risk as a necessary and acceptable cost of the policy, but pretending that it has zero impact is either a foolish argument or one offered in bad faith. 

Whether it’s impractical or not, it’s what’s happened since the Equality Act 2010 and the GRA wasn’t going to change it, even if Westminster hadn’t decided the jocks had gotten too big for their boots. 

[welshbairn]

22 minutes ago, virginton said:

The principle of self-ID enshrined within the GRA makes it impractical to gatekeep 'women's prisons'. The back of a fag packet, 'we've analysed the risk though!' stance will not stand up to serious legal scrutiny. In fact, it quite clearly isn't working already given the absolute state that the SG has got itself into. 

You can accept that very, very low risk as a necessary and acceptable cost of the policy, but pretending that it has zero impact is either a foolish argument or one offered in bad faith. 

The SPS have to risk assess about 2 cases a year at the moment, just to get the scale we're talking about. The rapist currently in the news doesn't have a GR certificate, self ID wouldn't change the situation.

Edited February 3, 2023 by welshbairn

[The_Kincardine]

On 31/01/2023 at 17:09, Leith Green said:

What would you do if (theoretically) you had child, born male, but who had perhaps never conformed to the standard ideal of what a boy should be?

Lets say that child told you at puberty that they felt deep down that they had always been female.

All piss taking aside, if this was your child would you tell them that only biological gender counts and that a wish to change this is "nonsense"?

If it was your child.

Sorry that DPB's gone.  He could be a touch intemperate but had a good heart.

As to your question, I can speak from recent- and ongoing - experience - and the answer from Tory Lib Dem South Bucks is that nobody really gives a f**k.

My youngest's enduring friend - from infant school through primary and onto grammar - was born Anna and is now Connor and I can;t think of anyone in their circle who really questions it.  OK - full disclosure - her maw (who is Anglo-Irish - so a  bit  of a unicorn) cried for a week.  My ex Mrs helped her recovery by asking - in her gauche way - "Why does Connor need a boob job?" to be told, "Unlike your two stick insects, Connor actually has tits".  Which made me laugh like a drain.

So while Connor isn't my child I did teach him to play draughts - and he even beat me a couple of times - and we're ongoing friends.  His parents and close friends  do not give a f**k about his change and are all supportive.

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Whether it’s impractical or not, it’s what’s happened since the Equality Act 2010 and the GRA wasn’t going to change it, even if Westminster hadn’t decided the jocks had gotten too big for their boots. 

The self-ID principle enshrined by the GRA will trump the Equalities Act in due course. Because that's the legally consistent application of fundamental human rights to all people, including prisoners with a gender recognition certificate regardless of their criminal offence. All it will take is one viable test case and the 'but... Equality Act! defence is toast. Fundamental rights trump 13 year old legislation. 

Supporters of self-ID can accept that as a minor collateral damage for a greater good, but accepting that is going to happen is part of the deal. 

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

The self-ID principle enshrined by the GRA will trump the Equalities Act in due course.

I doubt it.  Self-ID requires one to be complicit in a fiction and we've seen this week how proponents of the idea - Sturgeon and Gilruth - rail against it.

[Leith Green]

30 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Sorry that DPB's gone.  He could be a touch intemperate but had a good heart.

As to your question, I can speak from recent- and ongoing - experience - and the answer from Tory Lib Dem South Bucks is that nobody really gives a f**k.

My youngest's enduring friend - from infant school through primary and onto grammar - was born Anna and is now Connor and I can;t think of anyone in their circle who really questions it.  OK - full disclosure - her maw (who is Anglo-Irish - so a  bit  of a unicorn) cried for a week.  My ex Mrs helped her recovery by asking - in her gauche way - "Why does Connor need a boob job?" to be told, "Unlike your two stick insects, Connor actually has tits".  Which made me laugh like a drain.

So while Connor isn't my child I did teach him to play draughts - and he even beat me a couple of times - and we're ongoing friends.  His parents and close friends  do not give a f**k about his change and are all supportive.

Which is an excellent story, and how it should work when we are all respectful of others.

It's good to hear you have a more enlightened view than DPB, who ended up booted off the board for his hateful views..........

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

It's good to hear you have a more enlightened view than DPB, who ended up booted off the board for his hateful views..........

Surprised that you're surprised...

[scottsdad]

3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Sorry that DPB's gone.  He could be a touch intemperate but had a good heart.

No, he was a troll and a roaster. The board is a far better place without him.

Using stuff someone wrote on the depression thread as ammo to have a go at them for instance. Or his utterly disgusting user name. Or a dozen other things. 

Others have been banned who are more deserving of your salty tears. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Sorry that DPB's gone.  He could be a touch intemperate but had a good heart.

As to your question, I can speak from recent- and ongoing - experience - and the answer from Tory Lib Dem South Bucks is that nobody really gives a f**k.

My youngest's enduring friend - from infant school through primary and onto grammar - was born Anna and is now Connor and I can;t think of anyone in their circle who really questions it.  OK - full disclosure - her maw (who is Anglo-Irish - so a  bit  of a unicorn) cried for a week.  My ex Mrs helped her recovery by asking - in her gauche way - "Why does Connor need a boob job?" to be told, "Unlike your two stick insects, Connor actually has tits".  Which made me laugh like a drain.

So while Connor isn't my child I did teach him to play draughts - and he even beat me a couple of times - and we're ongoing friends.  His parents and close friends  do not give a f**k about his change and are all supportive.

Nope, he was a disgusting bigot who enjoyed a spot of homophobic/transphobic trolling, named himself after a school for kids with special needs, admitted hating women being involved in football and was eventually emptied for stating that he would hope that if he'd had a gay child, he'd hope that they "grow out of it". It comes as no surprise therefore that you'd miss him. 

Still, nice to see you honour his metaphorical passing with a convenient, but completely made up story about the subject at hand. 

[Wee Bully]

14 hours ago, virginton said:

Risk to whom? 

The punishment in this country is depravation of liberty.  Once that is achieved, it is incumbent on the state to protect ALL who are imprisoned. They also have a duty of care to their employees to protect them from harm as far as is possible. 
 

i don’t think this is a difficult concept to any other than the culture warriors. 

[welshbairn]

There's a Dawson park and community centre etc  in Falkirk, not just a school, so his name needn't be connected with the school, maybe he just grew up round there. He was plenty creepy enough without that, insisting that trans people's cocks should be cut off for one..

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

The punishment in this country is depravation of liberty.  

 

...but not human rights. Can you see where a defined fundamental right to self-ID will trump all of your bluster about legal punishment yet?

Top tip: The same deprivation of liberty applies to people who get done shoplifting to feed their family as much as it does to serial killers. Neither category of offender loses their other, fundamental human rights while imprisoned just because the SG says so. 

Quote

Once that is achieved, it is incumbent on the state to protect ALL who are imprisoned.

That's absolutely correct. So where is the greater accumulated risk of harm here:

1) An inmate who has committed a serious offence, has (entirely independently) undergone a gender transition but by fiat of the SG would be held in a prison of the opposite gender (for example, a male to female transition, held in an all-male prison), or

2) The inmates of a 'women's prison', from a single inmate who has been convicted of a serious offence and has undergone a gender transition using self-ID and has been placed in that institution. 

Despite their progressive posturing, the practice of the past 10 days have confirmed that the SG believes that 2) is actually the correct answer. But there's no evidence to support this. A transgender inmate faces a far, far higher likelihood of harm if they are held in a prison of their own birth gender: particularly in the male to female transition. Which is why the SG's case will collapse like a house of cards under any legal challenge. 

The SG has somehow flipped its position in ten days from trying to provide the fullest protection to the transgender community in all cases, to now shunting them into prisons of the opposite gender with very high risk of harm to the individuals involved - just so long as the government has decided that they're definite wrong 'uns based on their conviction record. This will not stand up to any serious scrutiny.

Quote

They also have a duty of care to their employees to protect them from harm as far as is possible. 

There's zero evidence that staff in prisons are at greater risk of harm from, well, any prisoner arrangement by gender. This frequently cited straw man is ridiculous.

Quote

i don’t think this is a difficult concept to any other than the culture warriors. 

It's not a difficult concept if you fail to think about it at all, that's for sure. 

There's undoubtedly a culture wars energy to the debate. But that's entirely separate to the fundamental principle that undermines self-ID: the state and society categorises all of us into different groups on an 'objective' basis. The mess that the SG has got itself into over prison policy simply reflects the wider contradiction that politicians cannot solve. You can't turn self-ID rights on and off like a tap: either you accept the very low risk of misuse as a price worth paying for progress, or you prefer the status quo. The SG has failed to accept that low risk by trying to shunt inmates from one jail to the other on the basis of a Daily fucking Record headline, before the bill has even come into effect: that's an utterly pathetic look.

To simply pretend that GRA is a brilliantly designed Goldilocks bill with no possible implications other than Progress and Equality is either stupid or dishonest.  

Edited February 4, 2023 by vikingTON

[welshbairn]

The GRR wouldn't change anything about this, risk assessment would still take place on a case to case basis. I don't get why anyone would think a blanket rule would be better.