The Gender Debate

[Thorongil]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

And you just prove my point.

Which is?

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

I’m think about Buzzfeed News and their hard hitting journalism rn.

Presumably you've never looked at a traditional media source over the past decade then, as it's filled with the exact same type of material. 

46 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

There's no doubt that Lynton Crosbie was behind the advice to have a section 35.

It's straight from the Trump playbook. 

You only needed to possess two working brain cells to launch a S35 against a floundering and increasingly unpopular GRA, that obviously impinges on the Equality Act. It's not some cynical mastery of the dark arts to do so.

Two brain cells would be overkill to avoid lolloping into the obvious trap of wasting public money pursuing a legal appeal to that - which explains why the Greens and Mr Continuity fail to pass that threshold. 

[strichener]

On 09/04/2023 at 09:11, carpetmonster said:

Buzzfeed is no worse than many news outlets and a damn sight better than half the British press. They got a Pulitzer in 2021. 

 

"I can't recall"......"should be".....it's not a 'no, we're definitely not checking 5 year olds' genitals' is it?

Yeah, they did get a Pulitzer back when they actually employed proper investigative journalists.  Even their Pulitzer winner no longer works for them, nor does their Pulitzer winning former editor-in-chief - Mark Schoofs whilst their investigative team has been completely disbanded.  The newsroom has been gutted and their content has suffered as a result.

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Trogdor said:

That would be fine except its not the Tories, is it? It's the EHRC who have been asked to look at it and recommend changes. The EHRC is not a Tory proxy despite what a lot of activists will claim. If I'm niave then you're being cynical bordering on alarmist.

Rolling back the rights of trans people isn't the vote winner for the Tories that you fear it is. 

The notion that the EHRC isn't behaving neutrally here hasn't just come from random trans rights activists on the internet.

It's come from the previous head of the EHRC, who in response to a speech by Liz Truss as equalities minister where she spoke of her appointments to the EHRC "driving the agenda forward" called for that power to be taken away from the government as "an independent regulator shouldn’t be in a position where the governments of the day can actually influence the appointments of that body to support a particular ideology." Carrying on that theme, Kemi Badenoch has made one appointment of a Commissioner in her time as Equalities Minister. It was someone who donated to her leadership campaign and had previously stood as a Tory candidate.

It's come from former legal directors of the EHRC, one of whom described the recommendations as "legally illiterate" and "pure transphobia." Another has previously described their understanding of how the Equality Act relates to trans people as "a profound and wilful misinterpretation of the law".

It's come from other EHRC staff members, who've described the chair as "incompetent when it comes to LGBT rights" with "a complete disregard for the huge amount of expertise in the organisation" and that she has personally "heavily edited" reports to better reflect her own views.

Another legal director also resigned ahead of the report being published. No public comment on that yet, but the timing is curious. It's almost as if their recommendations directly contradict their own expert legal advice because there was no ambiguity in the existing Act, but a board made up of political appointees (the chair having been appointed while Johnson was PM and Truss was Equalities Minister) is pressing ahead regardless.

If you believe that this is all simply about clearing up some ambiguity in the Equality Act, which oddly no one ever commented upon before despite apparently being a big issue now, expect a visit from the wallet inspector soon.

[f_c_dundee]

30 minutes ago, virginton said:

Presumably you've never looked at a traditional media source over the past decade then, as it's filled with the exact same type of material. 

You only needed to possess two working brain cells to launch a S35 against a floundering and increasingly unpopular GRA, that obviously impinges on the Equality Act. It's not some cynical mastery of the dark arts to do so.

Two brain cells would be overkill to avoid lolloping into the obvious trap of wasting public money pursuing a legal appeal to that - which explains why the Greens and Mr Continuity fail to pass that threshold. 

Aye they're lucky if they have one between them to be fair.

 

The amount of money and time wasted on this is depressing.  

 

I just couldn't work out if you were replying to me, when I'd not mentioned any news sources or whatever, so I was a bit perplexed.

 

 

There is some amount of clickbait shite out there though, and pretty much every news outlet is guilty of it these days. Even if the story is factual, the headline will be misleading and as controversial as possible, because it's all about the clicks for revenue.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

18 minutes ago, virginton said:

Presumably you've never looked at a traditional media source over the past decade then, as it's filled with the exact same type of material. 

You only needed to possess two working brain cells to launch a S35 against a floundering and increasingly unpopular GRA, that obviously impinges on the Equality Act. It's not some cynical mastery of the dark arts to do so.

Two brain cells would be overkill to avoid lolloping into the obvious trap of wasting public money pursuing a legal appeal to that - which explains why the Greens and Mr Continuity fail to pass that threshold. 

Sunak was swithering on using Section 35 - I'm fairly certain that Crosbie will have advised him to use it.

I agree regards your second point - there's a better way than pursuing a legal case.  Alastair Jack said himself when the section 35 was invoked that there was no objection to the principle of the GRA, that the objection was due to the GRA's impact on the EA.  The sensible thing would be to put it back to HM Government - ask them to clarify how the GRA could be amended to comply with UK Legislation.

[f_c_dundee]

14 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Sunak was swithering on using Section 35 - I'm fairly certain that Crosbie will have advised him to use it.

I agree regards your second point - there's a better way than pursuing a legal case.  Alastair Jack said himself when the section 35 was invoked that there was no objection to the principle of the GRA, that the objection was due to the GRA's impact on the EA.  The sensible thing would be to put it back to HM Government - ask them to clarify how the GRA could be amended to comply with UK Legislation.

It doesn't just need to comply on paper though, it needs to be workable as well - the 'cross border' issues of having differing legislation in this area are well  documented. 

 

Plus the fact that it isn't well supported by the public, particularly once they know exactly what is required for self identification, i.e. not a lot. 

[f_c_dundee]

24 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

The notion that the EHRC isn't behaving neutrally here hasn't just come from random trans rights activists on the internet.

It's come from the previous head of the EHRC, who in response to a speech by Liz Truss as equalities minister where she spoke of her appointments to the EHRC "driving the agenda forward" called for that power to be taken away from the government as "an independent regulator shouldn’t be in a position where the governments of the day can actually influence the appointments of that body to support a particular ideology." Carrying on that theme, Kemi Badenoch has made one appointment of a Commissioner in her time as Equalities Minister. It was someone who donated to her leadership campaign and had previously stood as a Tory candidate.

It's come from former legal directors of the EHRC, one of whom described the recommendations as "legally illiterate" and "pure transphobia." Another has previously described their understanding of how the Equality Act relates to trans people as "a profound and wilful misinterpretation of the law".

It's come from other EHRC staff members, who've described the chair as "incompetent when it comes to LGBT rights" with "a complete disregard for the huge amount of expertise in the organisation" and that she has personally "heavily edited" reports to better reflect her own views.

Another legal director also resigned ahead of the report being published. No public comment on that yet, but the timing is curious. It's almost as if their recommendations directly contradict their own expert legal advice because there was no ambiguity in the existing Act, but a board made up of political appointees (the chair having been appointed while Johnson was PM and Truss was Equalities Minister) is pressing ahead regardless.

If you believe that this is all simply about clearing up some ambiguity in the Equality Act, which oddly no one ever commented upon before despite apparently being a big issue now, expect a visit from the wallet inspector soon.

The previous chair and the staff members who influenced the policy could hardly be described as neutral either though.

 

The guidance issued that made the protections of single sex exemptions almost unworkable and useless have at least been updated slightly.

 

It's not a philosophical exercise or something that is just about people that you know, who are nice.

 

The reality is that we need these protections in place - one example being the fact that disabled campaigners wish to always be allowed to choose a carer of the same sex. If you need personal care in your home and as one woman pointed out, she can't move and some days even speak so she has the right to be comfortable receiving that care.

 

None of the exemptions that are asked for are demanding that trans people don't have the right to work in caring occupations or to participate in sport or to have support services or groups available. It just has to be accepted that they cannot always participate as the sex they would like to be, as that is often to the detriment of others. 

 

There's no easy middle ground and it's not just the Tories, there are voices from everywhere who wish to discuss this. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

12 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

It doesn't just need to comply on paper though, it needs to be workable as well - the 'cross border' issues of having differing legislation in this area are well  documented. 

 

Plus the fact that it isn't well supported by the public, particularly once they know exactly what is required for self identification, i.e. not a lot. 

If it were kicked back to them then HM Government would almost certainly consider the practicalaties as well.  In any case we already have legislation in place that has cross-border issues - taxation for one.

As for your second point , we are not governed by polls but by elected representatives - the legislation was supported by MSPs of all parties (91% of Labour MSPs, 100% of Lib Dem MSPs and even 3 Tory MSPs) by a significant majority.  

Edited April 10, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Thorongil]

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

If it were kicked back to them then HM Government would almost certainly consider the practicalaties as well.  In any case we already have legislation in place that has cross-border issues - taxation for one.

As for your second point , we are not governed by polls but by elected representatives - the legislation was supported by MSPs of all parties (91% of Labour MSPs, 100% of Lib Dem MSPs and even 3 Tory MSPs) by a significant majority.  

All of whom acted without mandate from the electorate on this issue.

The bill in its final extreme and dangerous form were not in any manifesto. Not even close. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 minute ago, Thorongil said:

All of whom acted without mandate from the electorate on this issue.

The bill in its final extreme and dangerous form were not in any manifesto. Not even close. 

It was in the SNP, Lib Dems and Labour manifestos.

What the SNP manifesto said:

“There is no place for conversion therapy in Scotland. Such practices are discriminatory and harmful to the mental health and wellbeing of LGBTI people. The UK Government made a commitment to ban conversion therapy in their LGBT Action Plan, and we fully support this, as we know making a ban fully comprehensive will involve action in reserved areas. However, if the UK Government does not take action, we will bring forward our own legislation insofar as is possible within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.”

“In the next parliament we will work with trans people, women, equality groups, legal and human rights experts to identify the best and most effective way to improve and simplify the process by which a trans person can obtain legal recognition, so that the trauma associated with that process is reduced. We remain committed to making necessary changes to the Gender Recognition Act that arise from this work at the earliest opportunity.”

“We will ensure that these changes do not affect the rights or protections that women currently have under the Equality Act. It is important that concerns about reforms to gender recognition law are addressed through informed and respectful discussion. However we must not allow them to be a cover for transphobia or disinformation.”

What the Scottish LibDem manifesto says:

“End the harmful practice of sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy in the next parliamentary session, working with the UK Government where necessary.”

“Improve laws on gender recognition in line with international best practice to allow trans people to change the legal gender on their birth certificate with a simple process based on the principle of self-determination, and without intrusive medical diagnosis requirements and include the recognition of non-binary people. This de-medicalised system to change legal gender will better support trans people to live their lives free from discrimination.”

What the Scottish Labour manifesto says:

“We will legislate to end the cruel practice of conversion therapy.”

“We will reform the Gender Recognition Act to demedicalise the process and allow for the recognition of people who identify as neither men nor women.”

“Scottish Labour shares concerns that some parents of children with intersex traits, also know as variations in sex characteristics, are still pressured into unnecessary surgeries. While some may choose to take medical steps later in life, this is a choice that must be made by individuals themselves.”

Amendments were made to the Act - Labour had a whip to support the GRA final vote.

[Thorongil]

I don’t see any reference to Self-ID there. Labour even had all of its proposed amendments rejected and still voted for the bill. 
 

quite incredible really.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 minute ago, Thorongil said:

I don’t see any reference to Self-ID there. Labour even had all of its proposed amendments rejected and still voted for the bill. 
 

quite incredible really.

The only incredible thing is your level of stupidity.

MSPs approved of amendment from Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy which ensuresd that the legislation will have no impact on the Equality Act 2010.

Amendment 145 was also appoved as the base for a wider amendment at Stage Three that created a general review of the Bill and its impacts, and include many of the areas for review proposed by MSPs at Stage Two.

Amendment 141 was also passed - to raise the three month “living in the acquired gender” period to six months if the applicant is aged 16 or 17.

Amendment 133 also passed, which would introduce an aggravator to existing criminal offences if the “circumstances of the offence are proven to be connected to the fact that the person has fraudulently obtained a gender recognition certificate.” This means that if a person was found guilty of a crime that they were enabled to carry out because they had obtained a GRC by fraud, then this can be taken into account when considering sentencing for that offence.

 

[vikingTON]

The SNP manifesto (as quoted above) promised a Goldilocks GRA that would meet all the progressive needs of transgender individuals, while magically not impacting women's protections under the EA. That aim was clearly not achieved by the Act that they voted for in the end - which is why it has been punted into touch so easily. 

The Lib Dems meanwhile just state their undying support for self-ID, which underlines the paper-thin understanding of the issue that 'progressives' have been working under. 

It's a difficult balancing act but we need politicians to do a better job of handling it.

[Thorongil]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The only incredible thing is your level of stupidity.

MSPs approved of amendment from Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy which ensuresd that the legislation will have no impact on the Equality Act 2010.

Amendment 145 was also appoved as the base for a wider amendment at Stage Three that created a general review of the Bill and its impacts, and include many of the areas for review proposed by MSPs at Stage Two.

Amendment 141 was also passed - to raise the three month “living in the acquired gender” period to six months if the applicant is aged 16 or 17.

Amendment 133 also passed, which would introduce an aggravator to existing criminal offences if the “circumstances of the offence are proven to be connected to the fact that the person has fraudulently obtained a gender recognition certificate.” This means that if a person was found guilty of a crime that they were enabled to carry out because they had obtained a GRC by fraud, then this can be taken into account when considering sentencing for that offence.

 

My apologies, all key Labour amendments including amendments around criminality and prisons.

 Which party manifesto proposed Self-ID and how many votes did they get from the Tories electorate?

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The only incredible thing is your level of stupidity.

MSPs approved of amendment from Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy which ensuresd that the legislation will have no impact on the Equality Act 2010.

It ensured no such thing - simply stating 'oh aye but we stand by the Equality Act too' does not actually make the two laws compatible with each other in practice, nor solve the fundamental contradiction between self-ID and the protected characteristic of birth sex. 

[vikingTON]

FWIW, any manifesto commitment (among hundreds of others) is not a magically binding pledge for gender recognition reform - or any other issue - that demonstrates the burning will of the people. For complex issues like this, perhaps a Citizens' Assembly or even a second chamber of non-party representatives would make a worthwhile contribution to the drafting of suitable law and getting the public on board with it. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have in place for the aftermath of a successful independence vote either. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by vikingTON

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

FWIW, any manifesto commitment (among hundreds of others) is not a magically binding pledge for gender recognition reform - or any other issue - that demonstrates the burning will of the people. For complex issues like this, perhaps a Citizen's Assembly or even a second chamber of non-party representatives would make a worthwhile contribution to the drafting of suitable law and getting the public on board with it. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have in place for the aftermath of a successful independence vote either. 

More the point that @Thorongil claimed it wasn't in the manifestos.  This has been an issue for over 6 years and not something magically brought up. You may agree or dosagree about it being included but there's no doubt it was included.

Wouldn't disagree with a second chamber - but definitely not one loaded either party hacks.

Edited April 10, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[DeeTillEhDeh]

7 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

My apologies, all key Labour amendments including amendments around criminality and prisons.

 Which party manifesto proposed Self-ID and how many votes did they get from the Tories electorate?

Lolwut? Since when did legislation need the agreement of all parties?

It's also very clear in those manifestos or are you, as ever, being deliberately obtuse?

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

17 minutes ago, virginton said:

It ensured no such thing - simply stating 'oh aye but we stand by the Equality Act too' does not actually make the two laws compatible with each other in practice, nor solve the fundamental contradiction between self-ID and the protected characteristic of birth sex. 

I was replying to his claim that no Labour amendments were passed - that was clearly bollocks - and the amendment you highlighted wasn't the only one I listed.

Edited April 10, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh