The Gender Debate

[HalfCutNinja]

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

No, we don't, and no, it hasn't.

As Lady Haldane pointed out, 'sex' as referenced in the Equality Act has always referred to 'legal sex'. Contrary to the claims of 'bringing confusion', she actually clarified the matter, even though it was always abundantly clear in the first place.

The ranting about 'biological sex' is nothing but a strawman concocted by transphobes. There never was any reference to 'biological sex' in the relevant laws and acts they keep bringing up, because there is and never was any requirement for there to be. The Equality Act was always intended to apply to sex as it is legally defined, and it beggars belief that groups such as For Women Scotland think this is in any way unclear or ambiguous.

Anyone who uses the phrase transphobe or terf in this debate is just identifying to the world they're an idiot. Being called a transphobe by these nutters is meaningless. Biology is transphobic according to them. Sex is binary and immutable. Facts don't care about your feelings.

[Detournement]

3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

No, we don't, and no, it hasn't.

As Lady Haldane pointed out, 'sex' as referenced in the Equality Act has always referred to 'legal sex'. Contrary to the claims of 'bringing confusion', she actually clarified the matter, even though it was always abundantly clear in the first place.

The ranting about 'biological sex' is nothing but a strawman concocted by transphobes. There never was any reference to 'biological sex' in the relevant laws and acts they keep bringing up, because there is and never was any requirement for there to be. The Equality Act was always intended to apply to sex as it is legally defined, and it beggars belief that groups such as For Women Scotland think this is in any way unclear or ambiguous.

Sex is a biological term and it gets recorded on your birth certificate based solely on biology.

Your legal sex is based 100% on biology unless you get a GRC. 

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Anyone who uses the phrase transphobe or terf in this debate is just identifying to the world they're an idiot. Being called a transphobe by these nutters is meaningless. Biology is transphobic according to them. Sex is binary and immutable. Facts don't care about your feelings.

'...and then I was caddying for Caitlyn Jenner but I just called him Bruce and he was totally fine with it.'

[Boo Khaki]

5 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Anyone who uses the phrase transphobe or terf in this debate is just identifying to the world they're an idiot. Being called a transphobe by these nutters is meaningless. Biology is transphobic according to them. Sex is binary and immutable. Facts don't care about your feelings.

What a pile of shite.

I have never once accused anyone of being, or suggested that anyone who believes in biological sex is a transphobe.

What I have done, is made the claim that the argument that the law was intended to define sex purely by biology is construct of transphobes. Subtle but important distinction.

FWIW, for the purpose of clarity I myself would be considered 'gender critical' as gender critical people themselves define the term, because I'm perfectly well aware and accepting of the fact that people can not alter their biological sex. They can, however, alter their sex as it is legally recorded, which is all the law is actually concerned with.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Sex is a biological term and it gets recorded on your birth certificate based solely on biology.

Your legal sex is based 100% on biology unless you get a GRC. 

Indeed. 

What is your point?

Edited December 22, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[Detournement]

Your sex is only legally recorded once in your life a few days after you are born and it's 100% down to biological sexual difference. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Detournement

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

Indeed. 

What is your point?

The point is that any attempt to separate the legal definition of sex from biology is absurd when the recording of sex on all birth certificates is wholly dictated by biological sexual difference. 

 

 

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Your sex is only legally recorded once in your life a few days after you are born and it's 100% down biological sexual difference. 

Unless it is later changed by the acquisition of a GRC, a fact which you are clearly already aware of.

The GRC reform bill does not alter this fact, and this is a circumstance which has existed since long before the SNP were making law. So again, I'd ask how on earth you can conclude 'it has now changed' when it has not.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[HalfCutNinja]

8 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

What a pile of shite.

I have never once accused anyone of being, or suggested that anyone who believes in biological sex is a transphobe.

What I have done, is made the claim that the argument that the law was intended to define sex purely by biology is construct of transphobes. Subtle but important distinction.

FWIW, for the purpose of clarity I myself would be considered 'gender critical' as gender critical people themselves define the term, because I'm perfectly well aware and accepting of the fact that people can not alter their biological sex. They can, however, alter their sex as it is legally recorded, which is all the law is actually concerned with.

Uh huh. Except you literally used the phrase 'transphobe' in the post I quoted. Read my post again. I made no reference whatsoever to your views as I don't know them. I simply said anyone that uses that phrase is an idiot. I'll accept your apology below...

[Detournement]

6 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Unless it is later changed by the acquisition of a GRC, a fact which you are clearly already aware of.

The GRC reform bill does not alter this fact, and this is a circumstance which has existed since long before the SNP were making law. So again, I'd ask how on earth you can conclude 'it has now changed' when it has not.

To change sex you previously needed an (absurd) medical diagnosis. Now that is no longer required, you just need the nod from Police Scotland (and possibly the Prison Service).

To pretend that this is all just technical legal stuff is disingenuous as we have seen when other contentious bills are passed then are later used as justification to limit free speech. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Detournement

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, HalfCutNinja said:

Uh huh. Except you literally used the phrase 'transphobe' in the post I quoted. Read my post again. I made no reference whatsoever to your views as I don't know them. I simply said anyone that uses that phrase is an idiot. I'll accept your apology below...

Yes, and I've done you the courtesy of explaining exactly why I used that term rather that denying it, as you imply, so you could at least acknowledge that your claim that mere use the term itself is the preserve of idiots is nonsensical. Unless, of course, you believe that transphobia itself simply is not a thing and transphobes do not exist.

[Detournement]

Just now, Boo Khaki said:

Yes, and I've done you the courtesy of explaining exactly why I used that term rather that denying it, as you imply, so you could at least acknowledge that your claim that mere use the term itself is the preserve of idiots is nonsensical. Unless, of course, you believe that transphobia itself simply is not a thing and transphobes do not exist.

There is no actual definition of transphobes though so it's a meaningless term.

There are people who say that lesbian women who refuse to consider transwomen as potential partners are transphobes. That's obviously mental.

[Boo Khaki]

3 minutes ago, Detournement said:

To change sex you previously needed an (absurd) medical diagnosis. Now that is no longer required, you just need the nod from Police Scotland (and possibly the Prison Service).

To pretend that this is all just technical legal stuff is disingenuous as we have seen when other contentious bills are passed then are later as justification to limit free speech. 

There's a wee bit more to it than that, but if you honestly believe the SPS are arbiters of who is eligible for a GRC then I'll really have to stop taking you on face value.

[HalfCutNinja]

2 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Yes, and I've done you the courtesy of explaining exactly why I used that term rather that denying it, as you imply, so you could at least acknowledge that your claim that mere use the term itself is the preserve of idiots is nonsensical. Unless, of course, you believe that transphobia itself simply is not a thing and transphobes do not exist.

Transphobe's probably represent 1 or 2% of society. This legislation is opposed by two thirds of society. Opposition to it is therefore nothing whatsoever to do with 'transphobia' and it is reductive to label it as such. As well as being dishonest. I absolutely stand by the position that anybody even using the term or terf in relation to this debate is an idiot. 100%. It's like Trump supporters calling anyone who doesn't support Trump a commie. It's nonsense. Though there are some commies in America.

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

There's a wee bit more to it than that, but if you honestly believe the SPS are arbiters of who is eligible for a GRC then I'll really have to stop taking you on face value.

They will be if someone is getting the jail.

 

[Boo Khaki]

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

There is no actual definition of transphobes though so it's a meaningless term.

There are people who say that lesbian women who refuse to consider transwomen as potential partners are transphobes. That's obviously mental.

Indeed. Why would that be contentious?

That doesn't mean that hatred of trans people purely because of their trans status is not a thing, or that the people who take that view aren't phobic, hence 'transphobe'.

It's not as if it's difficult to give it a definition, if you absolutely insist upon it.

[Boo Khaki]

2 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Transphobe's probably represent 1 or 2% of society. This legislation is opposed by two thirds of society. Opposition to it is therefore nothing whatsoever to do with 'transphobia' and it is reductive to label it as such. As well as being dishonest. I absolutely stand by the position that anybody even using the term or terf in relation to this debate is an idiot. 100%. It's like Trump supporters calling anyone who doesn't support Trump a commie. It's nonsense. Though there are some commies in America.

The first part of that is entirely conjecture, I could as easily claim 99% of people are transphobes, but neither claim has any providence whatsoever so the only thing you can do is dismiss it out of hand.

The second part, I can only assume you are basing on selected polls, and ignoring the other polls that contradict it. The real litmus test of policy is electoral, and on that basis, you can only conclude that Self-ID is either broadly popular, or is such an insignificant issue for most that it plays no part whatsoever in how the majority choose to vote.

[Detournement]

5 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

 

It's not as if it's difficult to give it a definition, if you absolutely insist upon it.

There's not even a widely agreed definition of being trans with some people believing that they are born with an innate gender (idiotic) and some people believing that they are socialised into a particular gender (correct).

[HalfCutNinja]

Just now, Boo Khaki said:

The first part of that is entirely conjecture, I could as easily claim 99% of people are transphobes, but neither claim has any providence whatsoever so the only thing you can do is dismiss it out of hand.

The second part, I can only assume you are basing on selected polls, and ignoring the other polls that contradict it. The real litmus test of policy is electoral, and on that basis, you can only conclude that Self-ID is either broadly popular, or is such an insignificant issue for most that it plays no part whatsoever in how the majority choose to vote.

No it's not, that could only be the case if the SNP only had one policy. And it's supported by three of the four opposition parties anyway.

I'm perfectly comfortable with all the views I have expressed here but this debate is toxic and based on fundamental dishonesty so I will bow out for now.

[Wee Bully]

53 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I have no skin in this game. But I am surprised (actually maybe not) at the number of posters who seem to think they do when they similarly have no skin in the same game.

Whether the legislation is right or wrong it seems there’s a number that are prepared to push it on, just coz…

Or, another perspective - pick any political party other than the SNP that might have chosen to promote it (when the initial view was it garnered generally cross-house support) - and I sincerely doubt it’d still be so resolutely driven by those same posters. Make of that what you will. 

I had no skin in the game in relation to gay marriage either. I supported it however, as it was the right thing to do.

Same here.