The Gender Debate

[DeeTillEhDeh]

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Right, so Miller's concerns clearly revolve around the question of medical transition, surgery, hormone treatments, detransition and so on. All of this is a perfectly legitimate topic to concern yourself with, but it has no relevance whatsoever to the GRC reform bill.

The act of attaining a GRC in no way compels, or mandates, anyone to undergo any form of surgery or medically alter their bodies. As GC's are fond of pointing out endlessly, the vast majority of trans people never undergo any form of body altering surgery in any case. 

I'm taking you on face value and assuming you are portraying Miller accurately and fairly here, but if you are asked to provide submissions to support your argument that a bill proposing the liberalisation of an administrative process should not proceed as intended, and you posit an argument concerned with a legitimate but completely unrelated issue, then is it any really any wonder when you fail to halt the bill?

If Miller and her cohorts are so concerned about the direction of travel regarding gender theory and some people's trans status that they just want to halt the entire thing completely, i.e. a blanket 'no' to anything whatsoever that recognises, validates, or 'encourages' trans people, then that's their prerogative, but I'd ask why they are so hellbent on restricting the rights of a group of people based on their trans status alone. It's not like trans people only magicked themselves into existence five minutes ago, despite this being the picture many GC's groups are attempting to paint, so why are they so completely consumed and obsessed with a demographic that has always existed, purely because governments in many countries are finally acknowledging that they have always suffered from a lack of official recognition and protection and are finally moving towards giving them the rights they deserve?

Like most of this type of opposition it will be rooted in Christian fundamentalism.

[Boo Khaki]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Like most of this type of opposition it will be rooted in Christian fundamentalism.

I think there's a background element of that. If you look at the usual suspects who turn up at GC protests it's predominantly white, middle-aged, middle-class women, and there is a theme throughout the 'feminism' on certain sites that, while it is entirely obsessed with trans and gender, plainly couldn't give less of a flying f**k about the day-to-day poverty and deprivation experienced by poor and working class women, or the obvious discrimination faced by women from ethnic backgrounds. They are also never slow to pile on any woman who expresses any disagreement with their take on gender issues, so you really have to wonder about just how honest they are being.

They are frequently seen championing voting Tory because 'they care about women', which beggars belief as it's self-evidently absolute nonsense, but it fits perfectly with the stereotype of GC women being largely from a very specific and narrow background.

So yes, probably a degree of religiosity involved, but I think it's much more about social conservatism, those more likely to be steeped in it, and in what that typically involves.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[King Ian]

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Right, so Miller's concerns clearly revolve around the question of medical transition, surgery, hormone treatments, detransition and so on. All of this is a perfectly legitimate topic to concern yourself with, but it has no relevance whatsoever to the GRC reform bill.

The act of attaining a GRC in no way compels, or mandates, anyone to undergo any form of surgery or medically alter their bodies. As GC's are fond of pointing out endlessly, the vast majority of trans people never undergo any form of body altering surgery in any case. 

I'm taking you on face value and assuming you are portraying Miller accurately and fairly here, but if you are asked to provide submissions to support your argument that a bill proposing the liberalisation of an administrative process should not proceed as intended, and you posit an argument concerned with a legitimate but completely unrelated issue, then is it any really any wonder when you fail to halt the bill?

If Miller and her cohorts are so concerned about the direction of travel regarding gender theory and some people's trans status that they just want to halt the entire thing completely, i.e. a blanket 'no' to anything whatsoever that recognises, validates, or 'encourages' trans people, then that's their prerogative, but I'd ask why they are so hellbent on restricting the rights of a group of people based on their trans status alone. It's not like trans people only magicked themselves into existence five minutes ago, despite this being the picture many GC's groups are attempting to paint, so why are they so completely consumed and obsessed with a demographic that has always existed, purely because governments in many countries are finally acknowledging that they have always suffered from a lack of official recognition and protection and are finally moving towards giving them the rights they deserve?

I think it does have relevance.  This bill makes the road to Elaine Miller’s concerns far quicker and easier.

Restricting the rights on people based on their trans status alone?  That’s not how I’d frame it at all.  Many see such surgery as harmful, for all sorts of reasons, some of which I’ve outlined.  Then there’s the whole issue of women’s spaces.

[Boo Khaki]

Attaining a GRC has no relevance whatsoever to medical transition. It's entirely possible to embark on that without a GRC, and there's nothing about a GRC that mandates it or facilitates it, so I'm at a loss to understand your contention that making the administrative process slightly less convoluted will lead to medical transition becoming 'quicker and easier'. 

Nothing in your second paragraph has any relevance whatsoever to this bill either. It does not alter or replace the EA in any way, so the situation regarding 'women's spaces' is completely unchanged. The protections and rights the EA establishes thanks to the provision for appropriate exceptions are still very much in place.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[Leith Green]

18 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Attaining a GRC has no relevance whatsoever to medical transition. It's entirely possible to embark on that without a GRC, and there's nothing about a GRC that mandates it or facilitates it, so I'm at a loss to understand your contention that making the administrative process slightly less convoluted will lead to medical transition becoming 'quicker and easier'. 

Nothing in your second paragraph has any relevance whatsoever to this bill either. It does not alter or replace the EA in any way, so the situation regarding 'women's spaces' is completely unchanged. The protections and rights the EA establishes thanks to the provision for appropriate exceptions are still very much in place.

He cant or more correctly wont accept your point that a GRC and having a medical transition are not the same thing or that the law has not made medical transition quicker.

There is a reason for that.

[King Ian]

41 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Attaining a GRC has no relevance whatsoever to medical transition. It's entirely possible to embark on that without a GRC, and there's nothing about a GRC that mandates it or facilitates it, so I'm at a loss to understand your contention that making the administrative process slightly less convoluted will lead to medical transition becoming 'quicker and easier'. 

Nothing in your second paragraph has any relevance whatsoever to this bill either. It does not alter or replace the EA in any way, so the situation regarding 'women's spaces' is completely unchanged. The protections and rights the EA establishes thanks to the provision for appropriate exceptions are still very much in place.

My apologies.  You’re right and I got it wrong with regards to surgery.

[vikingTON]

On 29/12/2022 at 08:34, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Like most of this type of opposition it will be rooted in Christian fundamentalism.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? Scotland is in practice a highly secularised society, so where does 'Christian fundamentalism' fit into any significant debate outside of the Wee Free brigade on Lewis and Harris? 

[Dunning1874]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

What evidence do you have to support this claim? Scotland is in practice a highly secularised society, so where does 'Christian fundamentalism' fit into any significant debate outside of the Wee Free brigade on Lewis and Harris? 

It fits when some of the supposedly independent, grassroots groups opposing this bill with genuine concerns, such as LGB Alliance, have links to fundamentalist Christian and more broadly right-wing and libertarian groups from outside the UK, as those groups see attacking trans rights as a wedge issue to move on to attacking wider LGBT rights.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

What evidence do you have to support this claim? Scotland is in practice a highly secularised society, so where does 'Christian fundamentalism' fit into any significant debate outside of the Wee Free brigade on Lewis and Harris? 

I said this "type of opposition".

You're also on another planet if you've missed the fact that US Christian right-wing groups have been financing anti-rights campaigns throughout Europe for the past decade or more.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by DeeTillEhDeh

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

It fits when some of the supposedly independent, grassroots groups opposing this bill with genuine concerns, such as LGB Alliance, have links to fundamentalist Christian and more broadly right-wing and libertarian groups from outside the UK, as those groups see attacking trans rights as a wedge issue to move on to attacking wider LGBT rights.

'Links to' does not demonstrate that the bulk of opposition, in 21st century Scotland, actually stems from Christian fundamentalism.

That's as spurious an argument as claiming that Scottish nationalism is mostly a Kremlin plot to undermine the UK, because RT provides favourable coverage and Salmond has taken money from them and Sputnik respectively. 

The wedge/slippery slope argument is also highly unconvincing. There's no actual evidence that LGB rights are going to be reversed in Scotland or the rest of the UK. It's not even in question any more. 

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I said this "type of opposition".

You're also on another planet if you've missed the fact that US Christian right-wing groups have been financing anti-rights campaigns throughout Europe for the past decade or more.

I've no doubt that US Christian groups fund a lot of batshit mental groups. Most of which gain zero public support.

Just because Christian groups are active on one side of the debate does not even remotely mean that 'most of this type of opposition' is actually rooted in Christian fundamentalism. 

[carpetmonster]

24 minutes ago, virginton said:

'Links to' does not demonstrate that the bulk of opposition, in 21st century Scotland, actually stems from Christian fundamentalism.

That's as spurious an argument as claiming that Scottish nationalism is mostly a Kremlin plot to undermine the UK, because RT provides favourable coverage and Salmond has taken money from them and Sputnik respectively. 

The wedge/slippery slope argument is also highly unconvincing. There's no actual evidence that LGB rights are going to be reversed in Scotland or the rest of the UK. It's not even in question any more. 

I've no doubt that US Christian groups fund a lot of batshit mental groups. Most of which gain zero public support.

Just because Christian groups are active on one side of the debate does not even remotely mean that 'most of this type of opposition' is actually rooted in Christian fundamentalism. 

The LGB Alliance - the main transphobic hate group - have their office at 55 Tufton Street, home of the IEA and various other Koch/Heritage Foundation ‘think tanks’. Must be total coinkydink that the Telegraph ran 5 hit pieces on trans people on the same page last month. 
 

LGB rights are not the target yet. TQ+ are the current canary in the coal mine. Should they be successful, B will be next. And then abortion. Or possibly they’ll skip B and go straight to that. 
 

ETA - more than likely, they’re halfway there already 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by carpetmonster

[Salt n Vinegar]

I doubt if there are any reliable statistics for the extent to which Christian fundamentalist groups, however defined, support LGBT, etc, rights, but I've yet to hear those who might be regarded as Christian fundamentalists "come out" to speak in favour of them. Marriage rights, adoption rights, fertility issues... 

I know it's not as bad as Afghanistan under the Taliban, but it's maybe because to some extent religions have been 'declawed' in significant parts of "the West".  I am left with the distinct impression that some religions would like little more than dragging us all back to the dark ages when the population was less educated and less free and religions (and their bedfellows, the monarchies) were all powerful. 

[carpetmonster]

1 minute ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I doubt if there are any reliable statistics for the extent to which Christian fundamentalist groups, however defined, support LGBT, etc, rights, but I've yet to hear those who might be regarded as Christian fundamentalists "come out" to speak in favour of them. Marriage rights, adoption rights, fertility issues... 

 

Gay men using surrogate mothers is also a big target. Some of the more fundamentalist US states have gone with ‘point of conception’ as their timeline to ban abortion which effectively outlaws IVF in places like Missouri because a medic destroying a fertilized egg (typically there’s 3 or 4 from which one is selected) could be classed as murder per state law post Roe vs Wade being struck down. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:

Gay men using surrogate mothers is also a big target. Some of the more fundamentalist US states have gone with ‘point of conception’ as their timeline to ban abortion which effectively outlaws IVF in places like Missouri because a medic destroying a fertilized egg (typically there’s 3 or 4 from which one is selected) could be classed as murder per state law post Roe vs Wade being struck down. 

These dudes must really have it in for the great creator with the number of fertilised eggs that He makes or allows to naturally fail to be implanted.  About half, or something like that? As for miscarriages. Sheesh. If the merciful deity was actually living in the United States in some areas he'd be in jail.  Republicans chanting "lock Him up!" "lock Him up!" 

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

The LGB Alliance - the main transphobic hate group - have their office at 55 Tufton Street, home of the IEA and various other Koch/Heritage Foundation ‘think tanks’. Must be total coinkydink that the Telegraph ran 5 hit pieces on trans people on the same page last month. 

What, because The Telegraph was a font of inclusivity until an American astroturf organisation got up and running?

I would say that is indeed a coincidence. 

Quote

LGB rights are not the target yet. TQ+ are the current canary in the coal mine. Should they be successful, B will be next. And then abortion. Or possibly they’ll skip B and go straight to that. 

ETA - more than likely, they’re halfway there already

There are already groups and organisations that are set up to oppose gay rights - they have made no traction whatsoever in the past two decades. No amount of money or conviction from a fringe of Christian weirdos can generate public controversy in a secular country, when the matter is firmly settled.

Contrary to the slippery slope argument, there is no foreseeable crossover between transgender and sexuality rights being contested. There are fundamental differences between the two. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by vikingTON

[BFTD]

5 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I said this "type of opposition".

You're also on another planet if you've missed the fact that US Christian right-wing groups have been financing anti-rights campaigns throughout Europe for the past decade or more.

Not just Europe; they've had their eager wee fingers all over countries in Africa who've been cracking down on folk that the Christian right don't like.

[carpetmonster]

44 minutes ago, virginton said:

What, because The Telegraph was a font of inclusivity until an American astroturf organisation got up and running?

No, however why this minority above all other though?

44 minutes ago, virginton said:

I would say that is indeed a coincidence. 

it isn’t. 

44 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

There are already groups and organisations that are set up to oppose gay rights - they have made no traction whatsoever in the past two decades. No amount of money or conviction from a fringe of Christian weirdos can generate public controversy in a secular country, when the matter is firmly settled.

Yes. Hence the ‘LGB Alliance’ - whose membership is 93% heterosexual - pretending that it’s just trans people they don’t like, when they’ve been caught out being biphobic numerous times also. 
 

https://bicommunitynews.co.uk/12333/biphobic-lgb-rights-group-comes-out-against-equal-marriage/

 

Remember Brett Kavanaugh saying Roe V Wade was ‘settled law’ in his SC confirmation hearings? Did Justice Kavanaugh abstain when said case was put before him? 

44 minutes ago, virginton said:

Contrary to the slippery slope argument, there is no foreseeable crossover between transgender and sexuality rights being contested. There are fundamental differences between the two. 

For a historian, your lack of understanding of the concept that history repeats itself is awesome, which I mean in the correct sense of the word. 
 

ETA - wrong link in the first instance although it serves to emphasise the point of the one I meant to post which is https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/06/19/lgb-alliance-same-sex-marriage-twitter-transgender-homophobia-owen-jones-baclash/

Edited December 30, 2022 by carpetmonster

[vikingTON]

What on earth has the Supreme Court in the USA got to do with 21st century Scotland or indeed the UK? They're two entirely different political systems, societies and cultures - not least in terms of Christian fundamentalism that you are trying and failing to identify with this debate. 

And History doesn't in fact 'repeat itself' either. That's just what gubbins sociologists tell themselves because they can't deal with issues of agency and contingency undoing their grand theories of change. 

If you seriously believe that LGB rights are going to be challenged in the UK in its current societal context then you are utterly deluded. 

[carpetmonster]

Just now, virginton said:

What on earth has the Supreme Court in the USA got to do with 21st century Scotland or indeed the UK? They're two entirely different political systems, societies and cultures - not least in terms of Christian fundamentalism that you are trying and failing to identify with this debate. 

And History doesn't in fact 'repeat itself' either. That's just what gubbins sociologists tell themselves because they can't deal with issues of agency and contingency undoing their grand theories of change. 

If you seriously believe that LGB rights are going to be challenged in the UK in its current societal context then you are utterly deluded. 

Uh huh. This is why the UK has a Minister for Women who thinks nutcases screaming at women outside abortion clinics might just be trying to help, and your Equalities Minister is…*checks notes*…Kemi Badenoch. 
 

What to do is cut the following and paste it into Google - ‘First they came for the trade unionists’

[vikingTON]

Cut and paste into Google certainly does sum up the level of your 'analysis'.