Jump to content

The Gender Debate


jamamafegan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, alan862 said:

WOuld you be as vocal a supporter of this if it wasn't SNP pushing this? IF this was labour for example who came up with this would you be as supportive?

All 4 main parties stated in 2016 that they were supportive of this.

Only one of them subsequently jumped the fence by order of their bosses who are in thrall to some Tufton Street devised anti woke culture war bullshit designed to reinforce their base with red faced p***ks in Surrey golf clubs.

ITS NOT A FUCKING SNP "THING"...........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, alan862 said:

well we did need to make a bit easier but I don't agree with the 3 months thing and it being ok at 16.

Why not 3 months?

16, considering you can have a child and join the army and leave school all of which are big changes to your life or do you think all of those should be 18 or 21?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasting a large amount of parliamentary time and an enormous amount of political capital on a marginal wedge issue was not the right thing to do. Politically, it has been a disaster - compounded by the SG's reverse ferret as soon as the inevitable cases where assumption of self-ID proved problematic. They didn't even have the courage of their right thing to do conviction, and have spent the past month arbitrarily gendering both sexual offences (a male issue) and individual offenders based on an arbitrary wrong 'un scale at Bute House. 

You can fairly argue that the previous system was too onerous for those who want to transition and that reforms should take place. But the specific reforms put forward were highly flawed in a society that does in fact depend on objective criteria - the conflict between those two principles cannot be swept under the carpet. A shite reform is not better than no reform at all - it should have been punted into the long grass.

Meanwhile, the absolute nick of the country as a whole should have been the clear priority of every SG minister: not the GRA and not fucking mandatory recycling deposits either. Both have made the SG look hopelessly out of touch with the most important issues facing the country - it's not the QMU debating chamber. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

All 4 main parties stated in 2016 that they were supportive of this.

Only one of them subsequently jumped the fence by order of their bosses who are in thrall to some Tufton Street devised anti woke culture war bullshit designed to reinforce their base with red faced p***ks in Surrey golf clubs.

ITS NOT A FUCKING SNP "THING"...........................

I'm pretty sure they were supportive of change not the exact nill they got so don't twist things to suit your agenda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 101 said:

Why not 3 months?

16, considering you can have a child and join the army and leave school all of which are big changes to your life or do you think all of those should be 18 or 21?

You can leave the army. A child could be aborted or adopted currently. Can't get your cock back unless something changes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, virginton said:

Wasting a large amount of parliamentary time and an enormous amount of political capital on a marginal wedge issue was not the right thing to do. Politically, it has been a disaster - compounded by the SG's reverse ferret as soon as the inevitable cases where assumption of self-ID proved problematic. They didn't even have the courage of their right thing to do conviction, and have spent the past month arbitrarily gendering both sexual offences (a male issue) and individual offenders based on an arbitrary wrong 'un scale at Bute House. 

You can fairly argue that the previous system was too onerous for those who want to transition and that reforms should take place. But the specific reforms put forward were highly flawed in a society that does in fact depend on objective criteria - the conflict between those two principles cannot be swept under the carpet. A shite reform is not better than no reform at all - it should have been punted into the long grass.

Meanwhile, the absolute nick of the country as a whole should have been the clear priority of every SG minister: not the GRA and not fucking mandatory recycling deposits either. Both have made the SG look hopelessly out of touch with the most important issues facing the country - it's not the QMU debating chamber. 

Supermarkets already spending money on the deposit schemes and wouldn't surprise me If it doesn't happen at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, alan862 said:

I'm pretty sure they were supportive of change not the exact nill they got so don't twist things to suit your agenda

Nope, the proposal put forward by Justine Greening in 2017 was to demedicalise the process of getting a GRC, same as the Holyrood bill. 
 

Here you go - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-action-to-promote-lgbt-equality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

At 16 you can join the army or get married.

Both can end disastrously . . .

 

Yet the outgoing First Minister doesn't think they should be allowed to consume alcohol at 16. There is a hypocrisy in what 16 year old are allowed to do. It should be all or nothing. You are either an adult or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, alan862 said:

Cant drink alcohol. Can't legally buy an 18 computer game lol

You can drink alcohol from age 5 and from 14 (I think) in a bar as long as it's with a meal and there's an adult in the group.

I think there should be a more standardised age when you're considered an adult and 16 is fine by me.

Although there should also be more rigorous enforcement of laws against drunkenness.  It would be better if we as a society managed to change our drinking culture away from the main aim of getting steaming. Easier said than done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

Although there should also be more rigorous enforcement of laws against drunkenness.  It would be better if we as a society managed to change our drinking culture away from the main aim of getting steaming. Easier said than done.

100% if we were a bit more civilised we could even have alcohol at the football. 🙈

Spoiler

I accept its never going to happen

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Yet the outgoing First Minister doesn't think they should be allowed to consume alcohol at 16. There is a hypocrisy in what 16 year old are allowed to do. It should be all or nothing. You are either an adult or not.

I don't disagree.  It's also (as you know) my disappointment in the reaction of the Scottish Government to Isla Bryson et al.

Edited by DeeTillEhDeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...