The Gender Debate

[Thorongil]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

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?

 

Self ID is not in any of those manifestos. And what are you talking about re “the agreement of all parties”?

[Thorongil]

29 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?

Apologies, this should have said “from the Scottish electorate”.

[carpetmonster]

3 hours ago, Trogdor said:

 

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

You should probably tell the Deputy Chair of the Tories that

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-should-fight-next-election-29211636?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

[vikingTON]

30 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

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.

But none of them actually do what you (or tbf Holyrood) said that they would do in squaring GRA with the Equality Act. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

39 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Self ID is not in any of those manifestos. And what are you talking about re “the agreement of all parties”?

You're the one who asked "how many votes did they get from the Tories electorate?" 

We are a representative democracy  - the number of votes the Tories gets is irrelevant.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

21 minutes ago, virginton said:

But none of them actually do what you (or tbf Holyrood) said that they would do in squaring GRA with the Equality Act. 

Out of interest - do you think kicking it back to HM Government would be a better route than pursuing a legal case?

Af the very least it either squares the GRA with the EA or it shows that it can't be squared.

Edited April 10, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Thorongil]

7 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You're the one who asked "how many votes did they get from the Tories electorate?" 

We are a representative democracy  - the number of votes the Tories gets is irrelevant.

Yeah, that was an error as I have explained.

[vikingTON]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Out of interest - do you think kicking it back to HM Government would be a better route than pursuing a legal case?

Af the very least it either squares the GRA with the EA or it shows that it can't be squared.

They should kick it back to the UK government to provide both gender recognition reform and square it with the EA. It's not in the political interests of the SNP to die on that hill. Let Westminster become the site for deciding a thoroughly toxic issue, that very few voters want their politicians to prioritise anyway.

If that upsets the Greens, 'progressive' political Twitter and the Mhari Black wing, then that's a bonus/also a bonus/just tough in that order. 

[Trogdor]

2 hours 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.

When in doubt. Attack!

Out of curiosity. Since inception in 2007 how many directors has the EHRC had? The two you cited are they the percentage equivalent of those who believe the earth is flat or more significant than that?

There is ambiguity in the existing Equality Act. That is a matter of fact. Sex cannot simultaneously mean legal sex and biological sex. See Michael Foran's analysis, I linked to it a page or two ago.

The attacks on the EHRC are orchestrated by groups including the Good Law Project (including the fox clubber, Jo Maughan) and Stonewall amongst many others. Who even complained to the The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions to review the EHRC's accreditation which was rejected. Unless the Global Alliance of Human Rights Institutions has been hijacked by Tories as well? I think I'll take their judgement as opposed to the twitter activists or the activists at the Good Law Project and Stonewall.

My original point still stands, where is the evidence that the EHRC is amending the EA to the detriment of trans people? I haven't seen any. This is alarmist fear mongering and it will have the opposite effect of what's desired here.

If these groups genuinely want change they should be engaging with the EHRC constructively. Not denigrating it.

As for the wallet inspector. I think they've already paid you a visit good sir.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

19 minutes ago, virginton said:

They should kick it back to the UK government to provide both gender recognition reform and square it with the EA. It's not in the political interests of the SNP to die on that hill. Let Westminster become the site for deciding a thoroughly toxic issue, that very few voters want their politicians to prioritise anyway.

If that upsets the Greens, 'progressive' political Twitter and the Mhari Black wing, then that's a bonus/also a bonus/just tough in that order. 

Upsetting the Greens would be the least of my worries.

If they truly want gender recognition reform they should be prepared to sup with the devil to get it.

Edited April 10, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[welshbairn]

Some of the reasons given by Westminster for issuing the section 35 exception were frankly bizarre and I don't think there are any amendments that would nullify them. I'd be surprised if the legal advice is that a challenge would have no chance of succeeding, and it's important not to allow a precedent for using section 35 to block Holyrood legislation for no good reason to rest without a challenge. 

Quote

Where an equal pay claim is brought by a claimant with a GRC, or a comparator with a GRC is used in the claim, an individual may have been treated as the opposite to their current legal sex for a significant proportion of their career with better or worse terms during this time than the comparator or claimant respectively. This may lead to the comparator test identifying an equal pay issue where one does not properly exist, or indeed failing to identify such an issue due to an individual’s status as the holder of a GRC.

Where a claimant may deem a colleague to be the most appropriate comparator of the opposite sex, but that colleague then receives a GRC, the 2010 Act would not enable them to be cited as the comparator in the claim. This could prevent the comparator test from accurately identifying what might otherwise have been deemed unlawful.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version

[DeeTillEhDeh]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Some of the reasons given by Westminster for issuing the section 35 exception were frankly bizarre and I don't think there are any amendments that would nullify them. I'd be surprised if the legal advice is that a challenge would have no chance of succeeding, and it's important not to allow a precedent for using section 35 to block Holyrood legislation for no good reason to rest without a challenge. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version

Punting it back to the UK government  doesn't necessarily prevent a future legal challenge happening if their response is not acceptable.

[TxRover]

8 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

People with a DSD (difference in sexual development, some also use variation i.e VSD) have repeatedly asked to have their medical conditions left out of this. They are bloody offended at being used to invent a 3rd sex.

 

There are only 2 sexes and all of those conditions which affect the chromosomes are in fact specific to either males or females. They are variations within normal development of the 2 sexes, not a separate sex.

 

The sex of the vast, vast majority (approximately 99.98%) of humans can be observed at birth (or before) and if there is noticeable ambiguity (in countries where it's available) karyotype testing can be carried out. Others may find out at puberty or even as an adult when they are trying to conceive. They are still male or female though. 

 

They are medical conditions which may affect the development of internal and/or external organs to different degrees. Some people even have a variation on XX and XY which doesn't actually produce changes. 

 

The practice of assigning a sex belongs to the past, historically some horrendous things were done to children. Google John Money if you've not heard some of the worst examples.

 

So although I'm not an expert, it's not me with the elementary error in this case. 

 

It's people with these differences in development being used as a political argument, about which many of them aren't happy. 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is, the scientific community has already moved on from the elementary model of two sexes, somewhat true in a reproductive sense, to a spectrum of sexes, based upon a number of factors not appreciated until more study of genes and development became possible. Things such as chimaerism, mosaicism, SRY directed contra-development, etc.

“I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health. And this is just from the first generation of delving into the genetic development of embryos.

[f_c_dundee]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

Yes it is, the scientific community has already moved on from the elementary model of two sexes, somewhat true in a reproductive sense, to a spectrum of sexes, based upon a number of factors not appreciated until more study of genes and development became possible. Things such as chimaerism, mosaicism, SRY directed contra-development, etc.

“I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health. And this is just from the first generation of delving into the genetic development of embryos.

A diversity of development within the 2 sexes. 

 

There are only 2 sexes.

 

 

[TxRover]

39 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

A diversity of development within the 2 sexes. 

 

There are only 2 sexes.

“some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure”

And the scientific community openly recognizes six sexes…sorry this hurts your worldview.

There are people who acknowledge scientific knowledge changes and expands over time, and people with their heads in the sand…you’ve chosen your position, don’t hurt your back.

[Thorongil]

55 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

A diversity of development within the 2 sexes. 

 

There are only 2 sexes.

 

 

Indeed. It’s like they can’t read.

[f_c_dundee]

5 hours ago, TxRover said:

“some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure”

And the scientific community openly recognizes six sexes…sorry this hurts your worldview.

There are people who acknowledge scientific knowledge changes and expands over time, and people with their heads in the sand…you’ve chosen your position, don’t hurt your back.

Six sexes. Do you really believe that?

 

Go on, do tell us about them?

 

The scientific community is really really not united in support of this. That's being a bit economical with the truth. 

 

Of course science evolves over time and new discoveries are made, do you think insulting our intelligence helps your case?

 

There are only 2 sexes. One is organised around the production of large gametes (ova) and one around the production of small gametes (sperm). The existence of anomalies in the development of a small amount of individuals does not change that. No more than the fact that we could be born with only one leg or additional digits means that the number of legs or digits in humans is a spectrum. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by f_c_dundee
Typo. Again

[Thorongil]

Just now, f_c_dundee said:

Six sexes. Do you really believe that?

 

Go on, do tell us about them?

 

The scientific community is really really not united in support of this. That's being a bit economical with the truth. 

 

Of course science evolves over time and new discoveries are made, do you think insulting our intelligence helps your case?

 

There are only 2 sexes. One is organised around the purification of large gametes (ova) and one around the production of small gametes (sperm). The existence of anomalies in the development of a small amount of individuals does not change that. No more than the fact that we could be born with only one leg or additional digits means that the number of legs or digits in humans is a spectrum. 

 

 

 

 

What I don’t get it why they seem to actually want to believe the lies they are telling. What is in it for them? 

[TxRover]

1 minute ago, f_c_dundee said:

Six sexes. Do you really believe that?

 

Go on, do tell us about them?

 

The scientific community is really really not united in support of this. That's being a bit economical with the truth. 

 

Of course science evolves over time and new discoveries are made, do you think insulting our intelligence helps your case?

 

There are only 2 sexes. One is organised around the purification of large gametes (ova) and one around the production of small gametes (sperm). The existence of anomalies in the development of a small amount of individuals does not change that. No more than the fact that we could be born with only one leg or additional digits means that the number of legs or digits in humans is a spectrum. 

Now we see where you are going wrong, you are using the term “sex” with regard to reproductive physiology. As I noted above, there are at least six sexes in regard to chromosomal combinations, which is NOT limited to the reproductive aspect,

[f_c_dundee]

8 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Indeed. It’s like they can’t read.

Indeed.