Scottish Greens

[Gordon EF]

On 18/12/2020 at 22:00, GordonS said:

Fact is, if the person giving you an intimate examination looks like a woman, sounds like a woman and is dressed like a woman, what do her chromosomes and genitals have to do with anything?

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I have a bit of a problem with stuff like this, on principle. I think either there are some circumstances where we say it's reasonable for people to choose which medical professional treats then based on their characteristics or we don't. Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable saying that patients can discriminate along gender lines but it's an outrage that they may want to discriminate along biological sex lines.

And I'm really not meaning to be facetious here but would your opinion on this change if the person in question didn't particularly look or sound like a woman?

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I have a bit of a problem with stuff like this, on principle. I think either there are some circumstances where we say it's reasonable for people to choose which medical professional treats then based on their characteristics or we don't. Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable saying that patients can discriminate along gender lines but it's an outrage that they may want to discriminate along biological sex lines.

And I'm really not meaning to be facetious here but would your opinion on this change if the person in question didn't particularly look or sound like a woman?

The thing is it's addressing a situation that's never occurred afaik, to point the finger at trans women in general, and not in a nice way. 

[Gordon EF]

20 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The thing is it's addressing a situation that's never occurred afaik, to point the finger at trans women in general, and not in a nice way. 

But it's not the case that one "side" of this is kicking up a fuss about this when there was none before. It's an argument about whether sex or gender should be the determining factor on whether a person can choose the medical professional that examines them.

This rears it's head any time sex or gender issues come up. I think both sides of it are wrong. I think you have to either decide that sexual assault victims get full discretion to decide who does or doesn't examine them or no discretion. And this is a case where I'd give victims full discretion rather than giving them a menu of characteristics they can choose from and some they can't.

I think both sides of this are using sexual assault victims as ideological footballs to some extent and it's all pretty unedifying.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Gordon EF

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

But it's not the case that one "side" of this is kicking up a fuss about this when there was none before. It's an argument about whether sex or gender should be the determining factor on whether a person can choose the medical professional that examines them.

This rears it's head any time sex or gender issues come up. I think both sides of it are wrong. I think you have to either decide that sexual assault victims get full discretion to decide who examines them or no discretion. And this is a case where I'd give victims full discretion rather than giving them a menu of characteristics they can choose from and some they can't.

I think both sides of this are using sexual assault victims as ideological footballs to some extent and it's all pretty unedifying.

That's where I disagree. There isn't a single trans medical examiner in Scotland. It's raising theoretical scenarios that have never occurred to promote the idea that trans women are scary. The aim is to replace gender with sex in every bit of legislation where it's mentioned to put trans women in no man's land, as it were, starting off with the most emotive legislation they could find.

Edited December 23, 2020 by welshbairn

[GordonS]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I have a bit of a problem with stuff like this, on principle. I think either there are some circumstances where we say it's reasonable for people to choose which medical professional treats then based on their characteristics or we don't. Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable saying that patients can discriminate along gender lines but it's an outrage that they may want to discriminate along biological sex lines.

And I'm really not meaning to be facetious here but would your opinion on this change if the person in question didn't particularly look or sound like a woman?

All totally fair IMO.

In the specific circumstances we're talking about a woman who has been sexually assaulted by a man. In those circumstances it seems reasonable to me that the victim can ask not to be treated by a man.

I think the important factor is that they don't appear to be male, rather than that they must be female, if that makes sense. That would be very inappropriate in other circumstances but when dealing with a victim of sexual violence I think it's more than fair enough.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

That's where I disagree. There isn't a single trans medical examiner in Scotland. It's raising theoretical scenarios that have never occurred to promote the idea that trans women are scary. 

I mean, okay. I'm not sure how that's disagreeing with what I'm saying. I'm essentially saying that this issue absolutely shouldn't be a 'debate' with 'sides' but it regularly seems to become that and I think both groups who let this happen are acting poorly in this case. Then you're coming in with "yeah, but one side is acting poorly though".  I'm not attempting to dispute that.

[GordonS]

9 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

But it's not the case that one "side" of this is kicking up a fuss about this when there was none before. It's an argument about whether sex or gender should be the determining factor on whether a person can choose the medical professional that examines them.

This rears it's head any time sex or gender issues come up. I think both sides of it are wrong. I think you have to either decide that sexual assault victims get full discretion to decide who does or doesn't examine them or no discretion. And this is a case where I'd give victims full discretion rather than giving them a menu of characteristics they can choose from and some they can't.

I think both sides of this are using sexual assault victims as ideological footballs to some extent and it's all pretty unedifying.

Not sure the "both" sides thing works here, because the amendment made no legal or practical difference at all, other than for trans women who identify as women but have not yet been through the legal process or have had surgery. It was purely symbolic and it's a dog whistle.

The idea that any medical establishment would respond to a victim's request to be treated by a woman by sending in a pre-op, pre legal change trans woman is an absolute bogeyman.

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, GordonS said:

All totally fair IMO.

In the specific circumstances we're talking about a woman who has been sexually assaulted by a man. In those circumstances it seems reasonable to me that the victim can ask not to be treated by a man.

I think the important factor is that they don't appear to be male, rather than that they must be female, if that makes sense. That would be very inappropriate in other circumstances but when dealing with a victim of sexual violence I think it's more than fair enough.

I understand that completely but I just don't see any logic in limiting their decision like that. I appreciate this is a rare / non-existent scenario but if a victim was distressed about being examined by a trans woman for any reason, do you really envisage any scenario where you'd basically tell them 'tough luck'.

I don't think we need to legislate for every possible scenario. I think we should have just said victims have a legal right to have discretion in who examines them and that's that. It's far more a point of principle rather than practice, move on to issues that have a bigger impact of victims of sexual assault.

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Not sure the "both" sides thing works here, because the amendment made no legal or practical difference at all, other than for trans women who identify as women but have not yet been through the legal process or have had surgery. It was purely symbolic and it's a dog whistle.

The idea that any medical establishment would respond to a victim's request to be treated by a woman by sending in a pre-op, pre legal change trans woman is an absolute bogeyman.

I'm very much trying not to be Captain "both sides" here and I'm not trying to say both sides are as bad as each other. 

I just think, having lived in the world for the past few years, injecting sex or gender into any bill or amendment where it really doesn't need to be injected is either outright spoiling for a fight or being extremely naive that it's not coming your way.

 

[pandarilla]

I'm going to continue to vote green for the second vote, and would probably vote for them fully under a pr system.

Is it ok that i don't want to be a part of any discussion regarding trans issues? It fair hurts my heid.

[Gordon EF]

9 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Sure. If we all held out for a party that ticked every single one of our boxes about 8 people would actually vote each election.

I think that's what is so disappointing about Wightman. He must know fine well that him leaving parliament, as is certain to happen next year, is going to water down Green political pressure on the SNP to deliver improvements across a wide range of areas, not least of which are things like tenants rights and land reform that he has championed for decades. I suspect he has been outside the tent pissing in for so long that he's found the last few years of party political life to be too restrictive for his mischievous (in the establishments eyes) instincts.

He prefers this to just voting as instructed and shutting up about it, which is a shame really. 

It is pretty disappointing as Andy Wightman is one of those politicians that I think is really important to have in parliament. I think replacing him with some spotty student or yummy mummy from Morningside is a significant loss to the Greens and the parliament. I'll probably still give the Greens my list vote and i doubt it will hurt them too much electorally but it's a shame.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

I understand that completely but I just don't see any logic in limiting their decision like that. I appreciate this is a rare / non-existent scenario but if a victim was distressed about being examined by a trans woman for any reason, do you really envisage any scenario where you'd basically tell them 'tough luck'.

I don't think we need to legislate for every possible scenario. I think we should have just said victims have a legal right to have discretion in who examines them and that's that. It's far more a point of principle rather than practice, move on to issues that have a bigger impact of victims of sexual assault.

I totally agree with you - Lamont should never have introduced the amendment and I think her real reason for doing so is obvious.

I can't envisage any victim of sexual assault ever thinking to ask not to be treated by a trans woman. But I also imagine medical staff bend over backwards to meet the requests of a victim no matter what they are. 

2 hours ago, pandarilla said:

I'm going to continue to vote green for the second vote, and would probably vote for them fully under a pr system.

Is it ok that i don't want to be a part of any discussion regarding trans issues? It fair hurts my heid.

Yes, you can't expect everyone to be up-to-date with every rammy these days. 

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

It is pretty disappointing as Andy Wightman is one of those politicians that I think is really important to have in parliament. I think replacing him with some spotty student or yummy mummy from Morningside is a significant loss to the Greens and the parliament. I'll probably still give the Greens my list vote and i doubt it will hurt them too much electorally but it's a shame.

I think it's very sad we're losing him and I wish he'd stuck to what he knows. But I don't think it's fair to characterise someone you don't know in the way you have (unless you know something I don't, of course). Lorna Slater is mid-40s, an electro-mechanical engineer and a project manager in renewables. She's not a career politician, she only got involved in 2014. IMO her likely election is the silver lining of this episode. https://sciencegrrl.co.uk/designing-control-systems/

[Gordon EF]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

I think it's very sad we're losing him and I wish he'd stuck to what he knows. But I don't think it's fair to characterise someone you don't know in the way you have (unless you know something I don't, of course). Lorna Slater is mid-40s, an electro-mechanical engineer and a project manager in renewables. She's not a career politician, she only got involved in 2014. IMO her likely election is the silver lining of this episode. https://sciencegrrl.co.uk/designing-control-systems/

Of course it's unfair. It's also unfair to characterise Ross Greer as a spotty student. I'm not so much saying 'this is all these people are'. I'm more pointing out that the Greens have always had and will continue to have a little bit of a hill to get over in terms of image. I think there's something in what someone else mentioned earlier about them being seen as kind of middle class idealists that stops more people feeling that they're the party for them. I think Andy Wightman is good for breaking that barrier down. I'm not sure many of the rest are.

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Of course it's unfair. It's also unfair to characterise Ross Greer as a spotty student. 

Yep - he's ginger as well.

[Gordon EF]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

I totally agree with you - Lamont should never have introduced the amendment and I think her real reason for doing so is obvious.

I can't envisage any victim of sexual assault ever thinking to ask not to be treated by a trans woman. But I also imagine medical staff bend over backwards to meet the requests of a victim no matter what they are. 

But you get my point though right? As someone who's never been in that position, I can't really comment on how I think people who have should or might feel about who carries out an examination. But if we're deciding to set down in writing that people have the right to decide who does and doesn't examine them based on the examiners characteristics, I think it makes little sense practically or in principle to dictate which characteristics can be used to make that decision and which can't. If that's what was done, then we just don't give this gender/sex argument nonsense oxygen.

[renton]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

I totally agree with you - Lamont should never have introduced the amendment and I think her real reason for doing so is obvious.

I can't envisage any victim of sexual assault ever thinking to ask not to be treated by a trans woman. But I also imagine medical staff bend over backwards to meet the requests of a victim no matter what they are. 

Yes, you can't expect everyone to be up-to-date with every rammy these days. 

I think it's very sad we're losing him and I wish he'd stuck to what he knows. But I don't think it's fair to characterise someone you don't know in the way you have (unless you know something I don't, of course). Lorna Slater is mid-40s, an electro-mechanical engineer and a project manager in renewables. She's not a career politician, she only got involved in 2014. IMO her likely election is the silver lining of this episode. https://sciencegrrl.co.uk/designing-control-systems/

Never realised she worked for Memsstar. They do some cool vapour HF etch tools...

Edited December 23, 2020 by renton

[SandyCromarty]

Thought I'd Bump this up as there seems to be plentiful opinions and talk of a Green list vote on other threads.

Today in the Scottish Parliament Patrick Harvey gave a very forthright speech as party leader on the passing of Prince Philip, he mentioned that his party did not want a Monarchy in an Independent Scotland, the fact that wealth and privilege did not shield us from mortality, he went on to say that the 150,000 Covid deaths mainly passed a s a statistic, and of course he mentioned blood sports.

All very inflammatory to some sections of society but that's his party's view as he explained.

Edited April 12, 2021 by SandyCromarty

[Boo Khaki]

I don't really mind if the Greens want to lay down their Republican credentials now, because despite the SNP going to lengths to emphasise their approval for the Monarchy, I think it's inevitable that within a decade or so of Independence there would be a referendum on the matter.  I'm not certain I'd be able to call right now how I think that would turn out, but I do believe that after 10 years of not being a defacto part of the UK, that Scots might begin to consider that issue in a totally different light to how the majority do right now. I don't believe there's any scope for a referendum on the Monarchy in Scotland as things stand, but I certainly believe there would be in a fully independent nation.

[KingRocketman II]

16 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I don't really mind if the Greens want to lay down their Republican credentials now, because despite the SNP going to lengths to emphasise their approval for the Monarchy, I think it's inevitable that within a decade or so of Independence there would be a referendum on the matter.  I'm not certain I'd be able to call right now how I think that would turn out, but I do believe that after 10 years of not being a defacto part of the UK, that Scots might begin to consider that issue in a totally different light to how the majority do right now. I don't believe there's any scope for a referendum on the Monarchy in Scotland as things stand, but I certainly believe there would be in a fully independent nation.

we should have a referendum on the monarchy a few months before the one on indy............

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

Fair fucks to the Greens, in particular Harvie and Greer, for consistently winding up the right people