Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

She tweeted about donating money to We Are Fair Cop, who are frankly a shower of terrible transphobic b*****ds.

She criticised Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre for providing support to trans women who had been raped. This was their response: Standing up for rape crisis services | Blog | Rape Crisis Scotland 

When someone called Lily Madigan, a trans woman who is a Labour official "a bloke", she replied "Spot on". 

There was an article in the Edinburgh Evening News on Monday about a 16 year old trans kid who had been trolled online. Someone replied on Twitter that they were sceptical whether it had happened and she liked that tweet. She's blocked that kid on Twitter.

She refuses to use requested pronouns, which is just fucking ignorant, really. 

On top of that, she's generally an omniarsehole. She praised Neal Hanvey while he was under suspension, saying he had only been "suspected" of anti-semitism. She's been accused by her staff of bullying. And there's no doubt she's been working to undermine Nicola Sturgeon behind the scenes.

As for the GRA, the problem isn't her opposing it. The problem is why. If she had concerns about prisons and sport they could be dealt with in amendments. But she's not interested in that because she's not trying to protect cis women, she's trying to demonise transgender people. 

This is the crux of it for me.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain GC arguments. Everyone has the right to be heard, and even if you initially disagree with their premise, if they put their argument forward in a cogent, and considered manner, then I think we owe it to them to listen, contemplate, engage and respond.

Where Cherry and her ilk fall down is the company they keep, and the actions they take when challenged. 

I know a few GC women who genuinely do believe that GRA reform does constitute a threat to women using women-only spaces. Now this is the thing, they genuinely believe this, but it's not borne from any fundamental inherent hatred of trans people. Indeed, I actually know one transwoman who wholeheartedly agrees with GC thinking, and it's not some bizarre form of internalised self-loathing, it stems from a genuinely held belief that there are predatory men out there who will abuse self-Id in order to more easily facilitate contact with women in a potentially vulnerable setting.

When you claim this is your position, but then you also openly big-up rampantly transphobic groups on social media, agree with and join in with blatant hate-speech, 'no platform' people who disagree with you (and yes, both sides are guilty of this), and go out of your way to be deliberately hurtful to specific individuals, then yes, you are betraying the fact that you are just a hateful bigot hiding behind a mask of legitimate concern.

The deliberate mis-naming and refusal to use preferred pronouns is the absolute dead giveaway that you are dealing with a bigot. They quite happily continue to use preferred pronouns for people who are not trans, so they clearly have no issue with the basic concept of addressing people in their preferred manner.

[Gordon EF]

Just want to be clear I don't buy the argument that the GRA will lead to an increase in sexual assaults at all. Isn't there plenty of evidence from places that have implemented these laws that this simply doesn't happen?

[Boo Khaki]

56 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Can I just say, as someone who has dealt with sexual assaults of all types and levels for over a decade that I can genuinely recall one transsexual person being done for a sexual crime which didnt occur anywhere near a female toilet or changing room (think they threw a condom at someone outside). 
if a sex offender of any gender wants to sneak into a toilet and abuse someone they will regardless of the legislation in place to recognise determination. The chances of this happening are the the same as if the legislation wasnt passed. 

Again, it needs to be absolutely clear that the GC argument isn't about transsexuals being a risk to women in women-only spaces, it's about predatory male offenders abusing self-ID. 

It's perfectly possible to be entirely accepting of trans people, and still believe that self-ID is open to abuse. It's a question of how it's managed and policed, but unfortunately the debate has been poisoned by people who genuinely are anti-trans bigots jumping in and hiding behind those genuine concerns.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[Boo Khaki]

3 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Just want to be clear I don't buy the argument that the GRA will lead to an increase in sexual assaults at all. Isn't there plenty of evidence from places that have implemented these laws that this simply doesn't happen?

No. It happens. Infrequently, but the GC argument is that one assaulted woman is one too many.

[Gordon EF]

Just now, Boo Khaki said:

No. It happens. Infrequently, but the GC argument is that one assaulted woman is one too many.

Well yeah, I didn't mean that it can never or has never happened, more that it doesn't result in significant increases.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

Well yeah, I didn't mean that it can never or has never happened, more that it doesn't result in significant increases.

It's pretty difficult though, to turn around to GC women and essentially tell them, 'well look, we know it's inevitable, but tough shit".

Again, I'm in favour of GRA reform, because I believe fundamentally that human rights are paramount. Even if you accept that Self-ID will be abused, you can't just discard the entire idea, because then you are chucking the rights of the genuine trans people under the bus. We don't remove rights from all men simply because some men choose to abuse women, but the GC argument implies that it should be perfectly ok to disregard the rights of trans people simply because one or two, or predatory males, might choose to abuse self-ID.

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

GC argument is that one assaulted woman is one too many.

They'll have to ban cohabiting couples and old firm games then. That's a daft position to take.

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

They'll have to ban cohabiting couples and old firm games then. That's a daft position to take.

I've often asked GC women "look, are you married? co-habiting with a male? Live with your parents?"

This covers the majority of them, and they always look nonplussed when I ask them why, then, are they happy to share bathroom facilities in their own homes with the very men who, by an order of magnitude, are by far and away the most likely to physically or sexually assault them.

The response is invariably "don't be ridiculous, I know and trust these men"

Which is laughable, considering that changes nothing about the fact that it's still fathers, husbands, partners, and brothers doing all the raping and assaulting, and also, it's a giveaway that a large part of the 'TERF' side of the GC argument is about irrational fear of strangers.

OK, I can accept that women, generally speaking, have far more cause to be wary of strangers than men do, but it still needs put into context and highlighted.

[NotThePars]

Again, it needs to be absolutely clear that the GC argument isn't about transsexuals being a risk to women in women-only spaces, it's about predatory male offenders abusing self-ID. 
It's perfectly possible to be entirely accepting of trans people, and still believe that self-ID is open to abuse. It's a question of how it's managed and policed, but unfortunately the debate has been poisoned by people who genuinely are anti-trans bigots jumping in and hiding behind those genuine concerns.

This is like when Benedict Cumberbatch tried to draw attention to the plight of poc actors and used the term ‘coloured’ lol.

[Gordon EF]

21 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

It's pretty difficult though, to turn around to GC women and essentially tell them, 'well look, we know it's inevitable, but tough shit".

Again, I'm in favour of GRA reform, because I believe fundamentally that human rights are paramount. Even if you accept that Self-ID will be abused, you can't just discard the entire idea, because then you are chucking the rights of the genuine trans people under the bus. We don't remove rights from all men simply because some men choose to abuse women, but the GC argument implies that it should be perfectly ok to disregard the rights of trans people simply because one or two, or predatory males, might choose to abuse self-ID.

I'm not dismissing every opposition to it. I think some people's concerns are genuine and the sensible approach to that situation is to try to persuade people.

[Gordon EF]

14 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

The response is invariably "don't be ridiculous, I know and trust these men"

It isn't a good argument to be fair to tie it in to men they do know and trust.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

I'm not dismissing every opposition to it. I think some people's concerns are genuine and the sensible approach to that situation is to try to persuade people.

Indeed. I think you just have to accept it's inevitable that no matter the final outcome, you are going to leave a rump of deeply dissatisfied fundamentalists. Same as most issues really. It's impossible to please absolutely everyone.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Again, it needs to be absolutely clear that the GC argument isn't about transsexuals being a risk to women in women-only spaces, it's about predatory male offenders abusing self-ID. 

It's perfectly possible to be entirely accepting of trans people, and still believe that self-ID is open to abuse. It's a question of how it's managed and policed, but unfortunately the debate has been poisoned by people who genuinely are anti-trans bigots jumping in and hiding behind those genuine concerns.

Can I ask, in what way do you perceive or picture that a predatory male abusing self id that someone determined to abuse a female couldnt already do just now? Now lets be explicit here, any abuse of any person in terms of sexual assault is absolutely unacceptable, but im asking what the perception of behaviour that this act would permit predators to do?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

10 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Can I ask, in what way do you perceive or picture that a predatory male abusing self id that someone determined to abuse a female couldnt already do just now? Now lets be explicit here, any abuse of any person in terms of sexual assault is absolutely unacceptable, but im asking what the perception of behaviour that this act would permit predators to do?

How's about be locked in a prison with hundreds of vulneralbe women?

[Boo Khaki]

8 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Can I ask, in what way do you perceive or picture that a predatory male abusing self id that someone determined to abuse a female couldnt already do just now? Now lets be explicit here, any abuse of any person in terms of sexual assault is absolutely unacceptable, but im asking what the perception of behaviour that this act would permit predators to do?

Well typically the example of Karen White is always brought up. Now I'm not making any claims about whether Karen White's claim to be a woman is genuinely held or not, but it seems to me that putting an individual who has multiple convictions for sexual offences against women into a women's prison, on the basis that because they now identify as a woman, this is the logical place for them to be, brings with it a requirement to ensure that the existing inmates are protected from the risk posed by that person.

Of course, it goes without saying that all prison inmates should be protected from harm and risks posed by all other inmates, and of course women in prison are still invariably subjected to assaults by other cisgender women, but it hardly does anything to dismantle the GC claims when you put an individual who is already known to be a threat to women into a women's prison, and they then commit a series of further offences against inmates.

To be clear, personally I view this as a failure of risk management and policing, nothing to do with trans rights or issues, but you can't tell GC women they are being silly and worrying about nothing when there are glaring examples like White to point to.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

[Granny Danger]

it looks like certain elements are doing what they set out to do.  Putting a huge amount of focus on an admittedly important, but nonetheless marginal, issue that is of little concern to most of the Scottish electorate.  It’s like Labour amplifying the issue of anti-Semitism at a time when they should be concentrating on inequality, poverty and the likely impact of Brexit.

 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

17 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

How many people have done this and how many are projected to do this under proposed changes to gender recognition? Absolutes or percentages of the prison population are fine.

How many are you okay with doing it?  Any whole number is fine.

Topically https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/opaque-and-overdue-scottish-prison-service-trans-prisoner-policy-review

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

How many are you okay with doing it?  Any whole number is fine.

Topically https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/opaque-and-overdue-scottish-prison-service-trans-prisoner-policy-review

Not wanting to speak for Mixu but I imagine the answer would be none. Just as we're not ok with any CIS women doing it. 

[ArabianKnight]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

I've often asked GC women "look, are you married? co-habiting with a male? Live with your parents?"

This covers the majority of them, and they always look nonplussed when I ask them why, then, are they happy to share bathroom facilities in their own homes with the very men who, by an order of magnitude, are by far and away the most likely to physically or sexually assault them.

The response is invariably "don't be ridiculous, I know and trust these men"

Which is laughable, considering that changes nothing about the fact that it's still fathers, husbands, partners, and brothers doing all the raping and assaulting, and also, it's a giveaway that a large part of the 'TERF' side of the GC argument is about irrational fear of strangers.

OK, I can accept that women, generally speaking, have far more cause to be wary of strangers than men do, but it still needs put into context and highlighted.

Never thought of putting an argument in these terms to someone who is gender critical.  That's perfect I'll be saving that analogy. 

On the Cherry thing thank you @GordonS for your responses, that's actually opened my eyes up a bit to her behaviour, I will admit I'd held a bit of respect for her before as I assumed her a capable and intelligent politician but that's swiftly evaporated given the sort of bigotry she's expressing.

 

9 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

it looks like certain elements are doing what they set out to do.  Putting a huge amount of focus on an admittedly important, but nonetheless marginal, issue that is of little concern to most of the Scottish electorate.  It’s like Labour amplifying the issue of anti-Semitism at a time when they should be concentrating on inequality, poverty and the likely impact of Brexit.

 

Wel yes, this entirely. I'll wrap the tinfoil hat up but it's exactly this sort of division that the security services would love to see. 

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

it looks like certain elements are doing what they set out to do.  Putting a huge amount of focus on an admittedly important, but nonetheless marginal, issue that is of little concern to most of the Scottish electorate.  It’s like Labour amplifying the issue of anti-Semitism at a time when they should be concentrating on inequality, poverty and the likely impact of Brexit.

 

Yes.

I think this is yet another one of the things that has been thrown into chaos by the timing of the Covid pandemic. The consultation on GRA reform had closed, and although the SG was making noises about 'hearing' the concerns of GC advocates, as far as I know the actual public response to proposed reform was overwhelmingly in favour, so I suspect SG intended to press on with this through the course of 2020 and have it resolved well in advance of the SGE 2021.

Along comes Covid-19, and here we are with it all erupting into an undignified public shitstorm.