The Gender Debate

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

People before 1970 had the right to change their gender on their birth certificates without asking for permission from anyone, anyone can still change the gender on their passport or driving license on the same basis.

 

52 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

That's not really a good thing though, is it, that documents can be changed so easily? 

 

It hasn't been an issue but for the last 5 years increasing hysteria on twitter about it, do you think the 1950's was a hell hole with beardy men in dresses invading women's toilets everywhere? Or even Ireland since 2015 since their GRR Act? Madness has descended on us, and not only from your side. Everyone really needs to calm down a bit, over an issue that affects a tiny proportion of the population who mostly want to just be left alone instead of being dragged into mainstream politics by social media obsessives.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

A protest in Belfast. 
Covid masks, Lenin, and even a few Rangers fans. A disappointing lack of Ukraine and blm flags but there’s a lot going on here. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Theroadlesstravelled

[Leith Green]

8 hours ago, welshbairn said:

 

It hasn't been an issue but for the last 5 years increasing hysteria on twitter about it, do you think the 1950's was a hell hole with beardy men in dresses invading women's toilets everywhere? Or even Ireland since 2015 since their GRR Act? Madness has descended on us, and not only from your side. Everyone really needs to calm down a bit, over an issue that affects a tiny proportion of the population who mostly want to just be left alone instead of being dragged into mainstream politics by social media obsessives.

My MiL (in her 90s) has a birth cert stating "male" due to an admin error and for reasons unknown has never actually corrected it.

Surprisingly, being a "male" hasnt stopped her having 4 kids, and afaikshe has never been huckled for going in the wrong bogs.................

[Wee Bully]

8 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

My MiL (in her 90s) has a birth cert stating "male" due to an admin error and for reasons unknown has never actually corrected it.

Surprisingly, being a "male" hasnt stopped her having 4 kids, and afaikshe has never been huckled for going in the wrong bogs.................

Does she not get any issues when she presents her certificate to use public toilets?

Surely “they” know?

[andyg83]

8 hours ago, welshbairn said:

 

It hasn't been an issue but for the last 5 years increasing hysteria on twitter about it, do you think the 1950's was a hell hole with beardy men in dresses invading women's toilets everywhere? Or even Ireland since 2015 since their GRR Act? Madness has descended on us, and not only from your side. Everyone really needs to calm down a bit, over an issue that affects a tiny proportion of the population who mostly want to just be left alone instead of being dragged into mainstream politics by social media obsessives.

You make a good point here. Calm is needed but I think it's the direction of travel that is a worry.

Things have definitely changed pace in the last few years. It's now effectively get on board with us or you're a bigot. 

I have just read the Spectator Articles that were posted a few pages ago. 

It's not a publication I would normally read (I usually actively avoid it tbh) but the two cited would have been uncontroversial a few years ago now but are seen as heathen by some. 

One of my biggest frustrations is the fact that the right wing commentators have probanly got the high ground on this issue whilst they left ties itself in knots.

[MrWorldwideJr]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

 

It hasn't been an issue but for the last 5 years increasing hysteria on twitter about it, do you think the 1950's was a hell hole with beardy men in dresses invading women's toilets everywhere? Or even Ireland since 2015 since their GRR Act? Madness has descended on us, and not only from your side. Everyone really needs to calm down a bit, over an issue that affects a tiny proportion of the population who mostly want to just be left alone instead of being dragged into mainstream politics by social media obsessives.

I think its worth pointing out, as an addition to your post, that whilst trans people definitely want to be left alone in the context of being a major focus of mainstream politics (especially in the current sense of just being used as a culture wars punching bag), its not the end goal.

What trans people want is to be left alone to live their lives and also to have their rights and conditions improved. As an example, access to gender affirming care in the UK is shocking currently. You can spend years on a waiting list for an inital appointment because services are so limited. Thats something which really has to change and improve.

Its not the case that if we can just wait out the current culture war then everything will be fine for trans people. Things would be better for sure but progress is still required which needs to be pushed for as it won't be happening on its own and the reality is there will always be people who either outright oppose it or who think it just isn't the right time.

Edited April 17, 2023 by MrWorldwideJr

[Boo Khaki]

@f_c_dundee

Quote

Remind me again the demographics - what's the average crime for women in jail (clue: quite a lot of shoplifting, drug offences, not paying TV licences, that kinda thing) and how many are in for violent crime? Compare that to the men in jail. 

Just a minor point of pedantry, but absolutely nobody gets put in prison because they haven't paid TV licence. This is a wilful mangling of truth that has somehow become accepted wisdom. I have no idea why, unless it's been contrived to paint women as unfairly targeted by both the BBC and the judicial system, but it simply is not true.

Non-payment of TV licence carries a maximum penalty of a £1000 fine, not a custodial sentence. It is non-payment of the fine that potentially results in a custodial sentence, but even then you will not find anyone jailed for that alone. The reason women's prisons have an inordinate number of inmates who are currently serving a sentence for non-payment of the fine is because they were people who were on trial for an unrelated offence and had that pending, so their solicitors ask the Sheriff to take that into account and permit them to 'clear' that offence by serving the sentence concurrently with whatever they were actually going to prison for in any case.

In Scotland, even when you are punished for watching TV without a licence the fine is typically in the region of £40-75 

I want to be clear, the point of bringing this up was not to attack you just for making the claim, because as I said, this appears to be a commonly held belief for some reason, so it's not at all uncommon or unusual to see it repeated as fact, but it simply is not what it is purported to be, i.e. "women being sent to prison because they didn't buy a TV licence".

[andyg83]

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

@f_c_dundee

Just a minor point of pedantry, but absolutely nobody gets put in prison because they haven't paid TV licence. This is a wilful mangling of truth that has somehow become accepted wisdom. I have no idea why, unless it's been contrived to paint women as unfairly targeted by both the BBC and the judicial system, but it simply is not true.

Non-payment of TV licence carries a maximum penalty of a £1000 fine, not a custodial sentence. It is non-payment of the fine that potentially results in a custodial sentence, but even then you will not find anyone jailed for that alone. The reason women's prisons have an inordinate number of inmates who are currently serving a sentence for non-payment of the fine is because they were people who were on trial for an unrelated offence and had that pending, so their solicitors ask the Sheriff to take that into account and permit them to 'clear' that offence by serving the sentence concurrently with whatever they were actually going to prison for in any case.

In Scotland, even when you are punished for watching TV without a licence the fine is typically in the region of £40-75 

I want to be clear, the point of bringing this up was not to attack you just for making the claim, because as I said, this appears to be a commonly held belief for some reason, so it's not at all uncommon or unusual to see it repeated as fact, but it simply is not what it is purported to be, i.e. "women being sent to prison because they didn't buy a TV licence".

Every day a school day isn't it. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

22 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

Does she not get any issues when she presents her certificate to use public toilets?

Surely “they” know?

What's the going rate for a Genital Inspector these days anyway? Do these weirdos get paid, or volunteer?

Tbh they seem the types that would definitely do it for absolutely nothing. 

[f_c_dundee]

15 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

@f_c_dundee

Just a minor point of pedantry, but absolutely nobody gets put in prison because they haven't paid TV licence. This is a wilful mangling of truth that has somehow become accepted wisdom. I have no idea why, unless it's been contrived to paint women as unfairly targeted by both the BBC and the judicial system, but it simply is not true.

Non-payment of TV licence carries a maximum penalty of a £1000 fine, not a custodial sentence. It is non-payment of the fine that potentially results in a custodial sentence, but even then you will not find anyone jailed for that alone. The reason women's prisons have an inordinate number of inmates who are currently serving a sentence for non-payment of the fine is because they were people who were on trial for an unrelated offence and had that pending, so their solicitors ask the Sheriff to take that into account and permit them to 'clear' that offence by serving the sentence concurrently with whatever they were actually going to prison for in any case.

In Scotland, even when you are punished for watching TV without a licence the fine is typically in the region of £40-75 

I want to be clear, the point of bringing this up was not to attack you just for making the claim, because as I said, this appears to be a commonly held belief for some reason, so it's not at all uncommon or unusual to see it repeated as fact, but it simply is not what it is purported to be, i.e. "women being sent to prison because they didn't buy a TV licence".

As a fellow pedant that's totally fair.

 

It was a bit lazy to not specify that it was related to continuing non payment.

 

Just trying to make the point that the overall offending patterns for those in women's jail is different. Women's prisons trend to be smaller and hold fewer violent individuals.

Statistically many women in prison have suffered abuse themselves already, so to further traumatise them by forcing them to share facilities with male bodied people seems particularly cruel. 

 

It may be only 'small numbers', but what number is deemed to be ok? Who signed off on the risk assessments that barely considered the women inmates and focused on the needs of the trans identifying individual? 

 

The critical thinking process about the actual effects of introducing policies such as this seems to have been absent in many cases. Women prisoners as a group aren't being listened to either. 

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/news/2021-07-02/high-court-ruling-male-prisoners-womens-prisons

While the judge in this case agreed that the women prisoners were being discriminated against, they basically shrugged and ruled that it was lawful so, tough really. 

 

Meanwhile you've people on here smugly joking about imaginary genital inspectors. Which were a) never a thing and b) strangely never even joked about, until the widening of the expectation to segregate facilities by sex rather than 'gender identity'. 

 

I'd love to know what kind of people you think I and others are that are not in 100% agreement with you though?  I mean, I realise being a Dundee fan could lead to questions about my own overall sanity, but really? Are we all likely to be either misinformed, bigoted, or just reading the wrong news? 

[Boo Khaki]

43 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

I'd love to know what kind of people you think I and others are that are not in 100% agreement with you though?  I mean, I realise being a Dundee fan could lead to questions about my own overall sanity, but really? Are we all likely to be either misinformed, bigoted, or just reading the wrong news? 

I'm not going to ask you to go back and read every post of mine in this thread, so for the sake of convenience I'll provide a brief summary of views I've already expressed in here regarding how I see the 'GC' position. For a start, despite being an advocate of GRR myself, I'm technically 'Gender Critical' as I do not believe human beings can change their biological sex, and 'Gender', despite being a very real 'thing' with significant implications, is nothing more than a social construct and not something that is innate. 

I have also said that I do not accept that every single person with gender sceptical views is a bigot, phobic, hateful, misinformed, or easily led by biased media sources pushing an agenda. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the people expressing 'genuine concerns' absolutely legitimately hold those concerns and are not motivated in the slightest by hate, however, if you take that position you must also accept that you are indistinguishable from the element who are absolutely and entirely motivated by hate of trans people. I find it bizarre that when someone like Nicola Sturgeon makes this exact point, it's invariably met by howls of outrage along the lines of 'how dare she call us transphobes!!' by the people who are adamant they are not transphobes and merely hold legitimate concerns about rights to single sex spaces etc (hello mumsnetters). After all, if you are not a transphobe, then the point being made does not apply to you, so you have no reason to be offended.

Why I reject 'GC' arguments about single sex spaces in spite of my own compliance with what is generally described as the underpinnings of 'GC' view is really quite simple. We are told over and over that the threat to women and vulnerable people comes from predatory and abusive men. I do not accept the conflation between these two groups, and I see no legitimate reason whatsoever to continue to deny dignity to trans people based on the actions of a criminal element of society. To argue for this is to lump all trans people in with, and hold them accountable for the actions of 'predatory men', and that is both repugnant and entirely unjustifiable. Abusive individuals absolutely do require better detection, policing, and management, but I can not countenance impeding a different class of people simply because of an inadequacy or deficiency in managing the former. I do reject the protestations by GC people that the trans 'debate' is nothing at all like what society went through with regard to homophobia a few decades back, because this aspect of the argument is absolutely the same. It was a commonly held view that gay men specifically could not be permitted to work with children and vulnerable people for fear of them taking advantage, so again, the conflation of two separate groups being deliberately contrived to posit an argument about restricting the right of one because of the actions of the other.

Where there is a genuine threat to vulnerable people from abusive men, campaign for better policing and management of abusive men, and stop conflating them with trans and gender non-conforming individuals. It's this part that I find utterly objectionable, and it's the main, but not the only reason I do not accept the 'but single sex spaces' argument. Trans people have been using single sex spaces perfectly peaceably for decades without the sky yet falling in, so how there can be such a backlash against a piece of legislation that actually adds some barriers to abusive individuals over and above existing law, is beyond me. The outrage over people like Isla Bryson potentially claiming trans status for sinister purposes, the apparent fear of the GC lobby, is perfectly possible already, yet the GRR Bill added in some safeguards to address this supposed issue, yet it's been poo-pooed by those very same people expressing concern about abusive individuals ability to do just that. There is nothing about GRA that actually permits people to use a bathroom and suchlike, as they already have that right regardless of holding a GRA or otherwise, but the GRR amendment was intended to place some impediment upon sex-offenders obtaining a GRC where there are none currently, so it seems to me this was specifically intended to allay the precise concerns voiced by the 'but Isla Bryson' circus, yet the people being most vociferous about this  rejected the very thing they are purporting to want, which lends credence to the suspicion that the reality is many of the 'GC' people are actually motivated by a desire to see GRA struck completely, which does just stink to high-heaven of phobia.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[f_c_dundee]

On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:

I'm not going to ask you to go back and read every post of mine in this thread, so for the sake of convenience I'll provide a brief summary of views I've already expressed in here regarding how I see the 'GC' position. For a start, despite being an advocate of GRR myself, I'm technically 'Gender Critical' as I do not believe human beings can change their biological sex, and 'Gender', despite being a very real 'thing' with significant implications, is nothing more than a social construct and not something that is innate. 

So you agree with me on the most fundamental point that I am making, that humans cannot change sex.  You do realise that actually makes you a transphobe though?   If you post that on Twitter, you'll get some interesting replies I'm sure.

On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:

I have also said that I do not accept that every single person with gender sceptical views is a bigot, phobic, hateful, misinformed, or easily led by biased media sources pushing an agenda. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the people expressing 'genuine concerns' absolutely legitimately hold those concerns and are not motivated in the slightest by hate, however, if you take that position you must also accept that you are indistinguishable from the element who are absolutely and entirely motivated by hate of trans people. I find it bizarre that when someone like Nicola Sturgeon makes this exact point, it's invariably met by howls of outrage along the lines of 'how dare she call us transphobes!!' by the people who are adamant they are not transphobes and merely hold legitimate concerns about rights to single sex spaces etc (hello mumsnetters). After all, if you are not a transphobe, then the point being made does not apply to you, so you have no reason to be offended.

Why must we accept that?  Who says?  You've gone a bit "Hitler was a vegetarian, so all vegetarians are evil" if you go down that route.

You have missed the point - it's not about being offended. It's about being dismissed as a transphobe/heretic/witch instead of being listened to about your legitimately held concerns.  I've never been offended by being told I must be a transphobe, I just roll my eyes at the logic fail really. 

 

On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:

Why I reject 'GC' arguments about single sex spaces in spite of my own compliance with what is generally described as the underpinnings of 'GC' view is really quite simple. We are told over and over that the threat to women and vulnerable people comes from predatory and abusive men. I do not accept the conflation between these two groups, and I see no legitimate reason whatsoever to continue to deny dignity to trans people based on the actions of a criminal element of society. To argue for this is to lump all trans people in with, and hold them accountable for the actions of 'predatory men', and that is both repugnant and entirely unjustifiable.

But this is how we do safeguarding.  If you want to work or volunteer with vulnerable people, you must apply for the PVG scheme, you can't be all outraged at being lumped in with potential criminals.

Men should still be excluded from the category of women, because nothing changes when they change how they identify (as you yourself believe - they can't change sex).  So there is just as much chance of them being a criminal as there is for any other man.  We can't excuse them from the category of men based on identification.

I posted a good few pages back about crime statistics, not to be down on men, but to show the reasons why people are not happy.

 

On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:

 

Abusive individuals absolutely do require better detection, policing, and management, but I can not countenance impeding a different class of people simply because of an inadequacy or deficiency in managing the former. I do reject the protestations by GC people that the trans 'debate' is nothing at all like what society went through with regard to homophobia a few decades back, because this aspect of the argument is absolutely the same. It was a commonly held view that gay men specifically could not be permitted to work with children and vulnerable people for fear of them taking advantage, so again, the conflation of two separate groups being deliberately contrived to posit an argument about restricting the right of one because of the actions of the other.

 

That was a bloody stupid view though, no? Based on actual prejudiced beliefs.  Gay men would be in the category of men, like all other males, not a special extra dangerous category. The arguments might sound the same, but it is not the same thing. 

 

On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:

Where there is a genuine threat to vulnerable people from abusive men, campaign for better policing and management of abusive men, and stop conflating them with trans and gender non-conforming individuals. It's this part that I find utterly objectionable, and it's the main, but not the only reason I do not accept the 'but single sex spaces' argument.

Have you seen the state of the police recently?  No one will bother to report rape soon, as the conviction rates are so woefully low.  They will just suffer in silence.

Spoiler

(If anyone was going to come back with something about false accusations, go check the numbers before you do, please.  They are miniscule in scale compared to this. False accusations should of course be dealt with and prosecuted seriously.  They are wrong, but not a physical violation of someone's body though, are they)

On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:

Trans people have been using single sex spaces perfectly peaceably for decades without the sky yet falling in, so how there can be such a backlash against a piece of legislation that actually adds some barriers to abusive individuals over and above existing law, is beyond me.

Well no one actually asked women or men how they felt, did they?  As pointed out previously, it was on a very small scale and composed mainly of male transexuals (this is the language used in the GRA before you panic) quietly trying to live as a woman. (don't even ask me what that means btw).

Since the 'transgender umbrella' became a thing, the category has expanded massively and now explicitly includes transvestites and 'gender fluid' people. 

Again, it's apples and oranges you are comparing.

I'm in favour of freedom of expression, stereotypes are complete shite and I don't subscribe to them at all. It's when you are changing laws based in ill-defined and essentially unprovable terms like gender and transgender.

On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:

The outrage over people like Isla Bryson potentially claiming trans status for sinister purposes, the apparent fear of the GC lobby, is perfectly possible already, yet the GRR Bill added in some safeguards to address this supposed issue, yet it's been poo-pooed by those very same people expressing concern about abusive individuals ability to do just that. There is nothing about GRA that actually permits people to use a bathroom and suchlike, as they already have that right regardless of holding a GRA or otherwise, but the GRR amendment was intended to place some impediment upon sex-offenders obtaining a GRC where there are none currently, so it seems to me this was specifically intended to allay the precise concerns voiced by the 'but Isla Bryson' circus, yet the people being most vociferous about this  rejected the very thing they are purporting to want, which lends credence to the suspicion that the reality is many of the 'GC' people are actually motivated by a desire to see GRA struck completely, which does just stink to high-heaven of phobia.

Are we are defining transphobia though as 'doesn't believe people can change sex', as I have been told?

Millions of people hold that view, even you.  A phobia would imply that all these people think that trans people are just bad and wrong for no reason but prejudice, surely?

I have actually encountered some people who think that the UK GRA should be repealed, as they believe it is bad law. 

They're not extremists as far as I can see, but they are pointing out that the law was not designed for the current numbers of people identifying as trans.  It was assumed to be apply to such a tiny number of people, that no one would mind.

So to apply it to a larger group of people and simultaneously take away the safeguards put in place at the time, is not a reform that a lot of people can get behind logically. It also began some of the conflation of sex and gender, by creating a law mentioning 'acquired gender' but then also saying that these people could be considered a member of the opposite sex.  (except for sex discrimination, where the comparator is a member of their own sex ).

It's just way more complicated than your homophobic bigots of the past, even if some of those old bigots are happy to chime in on this.

In my opinion the GRR bill was a joke, started with a committee who listened to one point of view much more than anther, and any amendments with teeth were voted down. Actually started with "consultations" which were attempted to be run without any publicity, and at the second attempt the SG dragged their feet massively about publishing comments as promised.

It's a mess and could have been discussed better from the start if discussion and debate were permitted and if so many people weren't too scared to say anything because (circling back) they were told they were bigots and transphobes.

 

 

 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Amazing 

[Ginaro]

I must've missed the posts in this thread that were saying people can change sex.

[f_c_dundee]

13 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

I must've missed the posts in this thread that were saying people can change sex.

Probably just next to the ones saying there are 6 sexes?

[f_c_dundee]

On 09/04/2023 at 18:15, Bully Wee Villa said:

Yes, it does.

Here's just one example where I was told you can.

 

But of course it's not reproductive sex, it's...the other kind I think I was told?

 

[f_c_dundee]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

Amazing 

Astute analysis as always. Top drawer.

I'm no going to cry if you laugh at me you know. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 minute ago, f_c_dundee said:

Astute analysis as always. Top drawer.

I'm no going to cry if you laugh at me you know. 

 

Any chance you could just multi-quote and keep your all your moonhowling nonsense in one place?

TIA 

[Bully Wee Villa]

Have given FCD a week off to enjoy her holiday.

[HTG]

1 hour ago, f_c_dundee said:

So you agree with me on the most fundamental point that I am making, that humans cannot change sex.  You do realise that actually makes you a transphobe though?   If you post that on Twitter, you'll get some interesting replies I'm sure.

Why must we accept that?  Who says?  You've gone a bit "Hitler was a vegetarian, so all vegetarians are evil" if you go down that route.

You have missed the point - it's not about being offended. It's about being dismissed as a transphobe/heretic/witch instead of being listened to about your legitimately held concerns.  I've never been offended by being told I must be a transphobe, I just roll my eyes at the logic fail really. 

 

But this is how we do safeguarding.  If you want to work or volunteer with vulnerable people, you must apply for the PVG scheme, you can't be all outraged at being lumped in with potential criminals.

Men should still be excluded from the category of women, because nothing changes when they change how they identify (as you yourself believe - they can't change sex).  So there is just as much chance of them being a criminal as there is for any other man.  We can't excuse them from the category of men based on identification.

I posted a good few pages back about crime statistics, not to be down on men, but to show the reasons why people are not happy.

 

 

That was a bloody stupid view though, no? Based on actual prejudiced beliefs.  Gay men would be in the category of men, like all other males, not a special extra dangerous category. The arguments might sound the same, but it is not the same thing. 

 

Have you seen the state of the police recently?  No one will bother to report rape soon, as the conviction rates are so woefully low.  They will just suffer in silence.

  Reveal hidden contents

(If anyone was going to come back with something about false accusations, go check the numbers before you do, please.  They are miniscule in scale compared to this. False accusations should of course be dealt with and prosecuted seriously.  They are wrong, but not a physical violation of someone's body though, are they)

Well no one actually asked women or men how they felt, did they?  As pointed out previously, it was on a very small scale and composed mainly of male transexuals (this is the language used in the GRA before you panic) quietly trying to live as a woman. (don't even ask me what that means btw).

Since the 'transgender umbrella' became a thing, the category has expanded massively and now explicitly includes transvestites and 'gender fluid' people. 

Again, it's apples and oranges you are comparing.

I'm in favour of freedom of expression, stereotypes are complete shite and I don't subscribe to them at all. It's when you are changing laws based in ill-defined and essentially unprovable terms like gender and transgender.

Are we are defining transphobia though as 'doesn't believe people can change sex', as I have been told?

Millions of people hold that view, even you.  A phobia would imply that all these people think that trans people are just bad and wrong for no reason but prejudice, surely?

I have actually encountered some people who think that the UK GRA should be repealed, as they believe it is bad law. 

They're not extremists as far as I can see, but they are pointing out that the law was not designed for the current numbers of people identifying as trans.  It was assumed to be apply to such a tiny number of people, that no one would mind.

So to apply it to a larger group of people and simultaneously take away the safeguards put in place at the time, is not a reform that a lot of people can get behind logically. It also began some of the conflation of sex and gender, by creating a law mentioning 'acquired gender' but then also saying that these people could be considered a member of the opposite sex.  (except for sex discrimination, where the comparator is a member of their own sex ).

It's just way more complicated than your homophobic bigots of the past, even if some of those old bigots are happy to chime in on this.

In my opinion the GRR bill was a joke, started with a committee who listened to one point of view much more than anther, and any amendments with teeth were voted down. Actually started with "consultations" which were attempted to be run without any publicity, and at the second attempt the SG dragged their feet massively about publishing comments as promised.

It's a mess and could have been discussed better from the start if discussion and debate were permitted and if so many people weren't too scared to say anything because (circling back) they were told they were bigots and transphobes.

 

 

 

In the name of f**k - are you related to Uncle Colm?