The Gender Debate

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, f_c_dundee said:

Still no actual response to my "transphobia" and still no explanation why I must be a man and a troll either. 

You've said stuff that some of the posters on here don't like and which doesn't conform to their blinkered world view.  That's enough to get a few of them on here going and 'you're a troll' or 'you're a fantasist' is pretty mild.  Some of them are capable of much worse.

[The_Kincardine]

I see the fragrant Ash Regan - the best FM Scotland never had - tried to make a sensible point about taking GRR to court - with predictable response:

 

[Billy Jean King]

The following sums up the last 10 pages of utter disingenuous drivel.

I'm not agrophobic I just don't believe outside exists.

Im not arachnaphobic I just don't believe spiders exist.

Im not transphobic I just dont believe trans people exist.

[TxRover]

3 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

The following sums up the last 10 pages of utter disingenuous drivel.

I'm not agrophobic I just don't believe outside exists.

Im not arachnaphobic I just don't believe spiders exist.

Im not transphobic I just dont believe trans people exist.

Oh, and asking why a person is as driven to post on a topic they were going to post once on is antitransphobicphobic.

The basic problem articulated by our new blinkered contributor (I’m pretty sure that Kinky got the one with blinkers backwards) is the insistence on single sex services. At a minimum, the idea that Rape Crisis Scotland must be lead by a woman, for instance, is a very unrealistic viewpoint that ignores the very real problems of somewhere between 10% and 15% of rape victims being male…but this is a bridge they seem willing to die upon. They couch it as an issue with the candidate, but that’s just a smoke-screen. The call for single sex services is simply an end to a means…note the “men and women” comment. Such a comment is a red flag for intent, and red meat for conservatives.

As for suggesting most are nice people, that’s code for “but I shouldn’t have to deal with them”. Then we have the immediate transition to bad people will take advantage of this, which is the bogeyman approach…it’s plastering “here be monsters” on a map and trying to prohibit exploring.

With regard to not believing in telling kids they can be what they want, because they can’t…and taking about a lifetime of medication…just exactly what do you think is occurring with any of a number of medications these days? At least in the end she once again identifies the problem, her beliefs.

The truly sad thing is many of these “arguments” were used in the past 20-30 years to oppose rights for same sex attraction individuals…and 50-100 years ago to oppose rights for women.

[Leith Green]

Philippa Whitford handing Gary Robertson his arse about GRR today.

A very sensible assessment from Whitford despite this utter walloper hectoring her about "isla bryson" at the end

 

[carpetmonster]

22 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Oh, and asking why a person is as driven to post on a topic they were going to post once on is antitransphobicphobic.

The basic problem articulated by our new blinkered contributor (I’m pretty sure that Kinky got the one with blinkers backwards) is the insistence on single sex services. At a minimum, the idea that Rape Crisis Scotland must be lead by a woman, for instance, is a very unrealistic viewpoint that ignores the very real problems of somewhere between 10% and 15% of rape victims being male…but this is a bridge they seem willing to die upon. They couch it as an issue with the candidate, but that’s just a smoke-screen. The call for single sex services is simply an end to a means…note the “men and women” comment. Such a comment is a red flag for intent, and red meat for conservatives.

As for suggesting most are nice people, that’s code for “but I shouldn’t have to deal with them”. Then we have the immediate transition to bad people will take advantage of this, which is the bogeyman approach…it’s plastering “here be monsters” on a map and trying to prohibit exploring.

With regard to not believing in telling kids they can be what they want, because they can’t…and taking about a lifetime of medication…just exactly what do you think is occurring with any of a number of medications these days? At least in the end she once again identifies the problem, her beliefs.

The truly sad thing is many of these “arguments” were used in the past 20-30 years to oppose rights for same sex attraction individuals…and 50-100 years ago to oppose rights for women.

Mridul Wadhwa is a trans woman, albeit without a GRC so I'm guessing 'LEGALLY A MAN' will be the riposte. Still, they haven't sacked her, and it does put a wee bit of a dampener on GC's insistence 'they can always tell', particularly the increasingly mental Rosie Duffield. 

[Wee Bully]

1 hour ago, Leith Green said:

Philippa Whitford handing Gary Robertson his arse about GRR today.

A very sensible assessment from Whitford despite this utter walloper hectoring her about "isla bryson" at the end

 

Excellent summary of the position.  We should be wheeling her out at every opportunity.

[orfc]

The problem isn't transgender people, it's the whole concept of self-id for anything

Joe Biden self-ids as Irish, he's not, some of his ancestors were

SNP list candidates self-id'ed as all kinds of spurious "disabilities" ( diabetes, Tourettes ) to cheat their way to protected positions and a lot of money

Leg-draggers at my old work self-ided as ill on the dot every third month so everyone else had to do their work

Hypochondriacs self-id as pretty much any illness they can read up on...

 

No one would say this means actual Irish people, disabled people or ill people are a problem, but they get their identity tarnished as self-id has no way to weed out cheats, frauds and the deluded and it's the same for the transgender issue

 

 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

1 hour ago, orfc said:

The problem isn't transgender people, it's the whole concept of self-id for anything

Joe Biden self-ids as Irish, he's not, some of his ancestors were

SNP list candidates self-id'ed as all kinds of spurious "disabilities" ( diabetes, Tourettes ) to cheat their way to protected positions and a lot of money

Leg-draggers at my old work self-ided as ill on the dot every third month so everyone else had to do their work

Hypochondriacs self-id as pretty much any illness they can read up on...

 

No one would say this means actual Irish people, disabled people or ill people are a problem, but they get their identity tarnished as self-id has no way to weed out cheats, frauds and the deluded and it's the same for the transgender issue

 

 

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, orfc said:

The problem isn't transgender people, it's the whole concept of self-id for anything

Joe Biden self-ids as Irish, he's not, some of his ancestors were

SNP list candidates self-id'ed as all kinds of spurious "disabilities" ( diabetes, Tourettes ) to cheat their way to protected positions and a lot of money

Leg-draggers at my old work self-ided as ill on the dot every third month so everyone else had to do their work

Hypochondriacs self-id as pretty much any illness they can read up on...

 

No one would say this means actual Irish people, disabled people or ill people are a problem, but they get their identity tarnished as self-id has no way to weed out cheats, frauds and the deluded and it's the same for the transgender issue

 

 

You missed out blacks and lezzers.

A poor effort

[Ad Lib]

21 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Given Jack's statement of reasons, I'd say the Section 35 fails. It's not about whether the GRR bill is reasonable after all, it's about their claims of conflict with the ERA, written down in the statement of reasons.

 

 

 

Which facts do you think he has failed to give due relevance to?

I don't think, against any legal standard, the decision is completely absurd.

What matters is whether he reasonably believes that it modifies the law so as to have an adverse effect on reserved law.

The issue here is that whether an effect is "adverse" is in the eye of the beholder.

[orfc]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

You missed out blacks and lezzers.

A poor effort

Well there was that Rachel Dolezal woman who self ID'ed as black. She was pretty much a one off though 

[andyg83]

This thread is mental. Some real zealots on here.

Self ID is going right in the bin thank goodness. 

I agree with dundee_f_c that the tide appears to be turning on this issue. Hopefully we can get back to a sensible middle ground.

[Bairnardo]

13 minutes ago, andyg83 said:

This thread is mental. Some real zealots on here.

Self ID is going right in the bin thank goodness. 

I agree with dundee_f_c that the tide appears to be turning on this issue. Hopefully we can get back to a sensible middle ground.

I hate to get involved here given the binfire this has become, but you are clearly not looking for anything like a middle ground. 

[andyg83]

27 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I hate to get involved here given the binfire this has become, but you are clearly not looking for anything like a middle ground. 

Good point.

Some folk are so far from reality that middle ground is perceived as persecution. It's mental. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I see the fragrant Ash Regan - the best FM Scotland never had - tried to make a sensible point about taking GRR to court - with predictable response:

 

Scottish people are far more traditionalist than the SNP gonks would like to admit.

[sophia]

There was someone on GMS this morning talking on this subject, I think she was called Laura Sumption and she sounded like a bloke.

Some things are just not right.

[f_c_dundee]

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

Oh, and asking why a person is as driven to post on a topic they were going to post once on is antitransphobicphobic.

You didn't just ask, you made assumptions and chucked insults about. When I explained my reasoning and motivation umpteen times in detail, there was no discussion of the points made. Just more "such transphobia, how awful".

 

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

The basic problem articulated by our new blinkered contributor (I’m pretty sure that Kinky got the one with blinkers backwards) is the insistence on single sex services. At a minimum, the idea that Rape Crisis Scotland must be lead by a woman, for instance, is a very unrealistic viewpoint that ignores the very real problems of somewhere between 10% and 15% of rape victims being male…but this is a bridge they seem willing to die upon. They couch it as an issue with the candidate, but that’s just a smoke-screen.

Yes, the problem being that *he's a man* and thought it was A-OK to apply for the job in which the advert said it was for women applicants only. I've no idea whether the recruiters knew or were too scared to say no, or if the story about lying is a load of crap anyway. It doesn't matter.

I've personally never said "everyone can 100% always tell" in here or anywhere, so  that's of no relevance here, just another distraction. 

Male victims of rape obviously need support as well. However there should not be pushback when the 85-90% of women victims say "fine ok have an inclusive group" but can we have just some for women only? They should not be required to accept men being present, e.g. in refuges or in group counselling or therapy.

Support for men is normally offered in a different location, for obvious reasons. 

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

The call for single sex services is simply an end to a means…note the “men and women” comment. Such a comment is a red flag for intent, and red meat for conservatives.

Say what now? That bit is just word salad tbh. 

 

People want single sex services for their privacy and dignity as well as any safety reasons, depending on the setting involved. That's what's required, no means to any other end. 

 

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

As for suggesting most are nice people, that’s code for “but I shouldn’t have to deal with them”.

 

Not if they insist on demanding to use spaces reserved for the opposite sex, no we shouldn't. Nothing to do with not wanting to deal with trans people, just the unrealistic expectation that everyone will see them as they wish to be seen and accept them as such. They could be nice or not, it's irrelevant.

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

Then we have the immediate transition to bad people will take advantage of this, which is the bogeyman approach…it’s plastering “here be monsters” on a map and trying to prohibit exploring.

But... They will and they have?

How many prisoners mysteriously finding a new identity after being charged with a crime, there's a few now, no?

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

With regard to not believing in telling kids they can be what they want, because they can’t…and taking about a lifetime of medication…just exactly what do you think is occurring with any of a number of medications these days? At least in the end she once again identifies the problem, her beliefs.

Yes I believe medication is fine, I'm personally on 2 medications that I'm likely to be on for life. They don't damage me though, they help. All medication is not equal, I'm lucky mine don't cause side effects for me.

 

Stopping a child's normal puberty (and we have no idea of the long term effects of this) then moving to cross sex hormones as the majority go on to do, is not helping a problem, it's creating one surely. What happens if they stop the hormones? It's not that easy is it?

 

The other aspect I mentioned is probably worse for young trans identifying people's MH - going out into the world and not being affirmed and accepted as they expected and hoped. Not out of malice even, just because people see what's in front of them, they won't know your preferred pronouns or how you identify. I don't see the kindness in promising them that. 

 

I'm as entitled to my belief as you are and I'm trying to answer honestly with information/reasons not dismissing you as <insert label here phobe>.

 

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

The truly sad thing is many of these “arguments” were used in the past 20-30 years to oppose rights for same sex attraction individuals…and 50-100 years ago to oppose rights for women.

Which 'arguments', particularly?

Same stuff though - should I copy and paste the discussion from several pages ago when we all covered section 28 and how this is not the same thing at all?

 

I find the implication a bit ridiculous that I'm trolling or not genuine in my concerns. I've posted no much more than plenty others on this thread and I've tried to engage in detail and explain my point of view clearly and calmly. 

 

Not exactly concisely I guess. I don't tend to be a person that can manage to use 3 words when there's 30, I'll admit that - so aye there's a bit of rambling, I'll take that one.

 

I'm happy to discuss this very complex issue, which is what the thread is for and I don't feel the need to dismiss you or shut you down. You have your views, I have mine. That's it surely?

 

PS just in case you're all still worried about my holiday enjoyment, I had another nice day out, it didn't even rain much at all.  Thank goodness the forecast was wrong. Just need a decent sleep now. 

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Which 'arguments', particularly?

Your “I don’t believe in it” approach. The Catholic Church against Heliocentrism, the Chinese and Russian Communist Parties on religion, the Church of England outside the UK on same sex relationships, the Trump Administration on immigration, and so many more use that. It doesn’t make it right, it makes you wrong…check back in a decade or two and perhaps you’ll have the good grace to be ashamed of your beliefs, but I doubt it.

As for the rest, you recycle the same points we refute and reargue them, so I’m not willing to subject everyone else to it again. You don’t agree, fine…now off you go and find another hobby horse to ride into the ground.

Edit: Just noticed that these posts match rather well with someone on EDT (Eastern Daylight Time vs BST), and the timing also matches available free time for a certain Liz Truss, visiting Washington, D.C. right now…and asking “what is a woman?”…

Edited April 14, 2023 by TxRover

[vikingTON]

On 12/04/2023 at 14:59, TxRover said:

Never suggested children be treated without adult involvement, but I will draw a line at requiring it to always be the/a parent. There are a number of case where requiring parental consent is tantamount to automatic denial, there has to be a means to allow a bypass, with appropriate controls and monitoring.

I didn't say the parent, I said the legal guardian. 

There should not be a means to bypass this, because taking consequential and irreversible medical decisions is not something that a legal child should be allowed to do by themselves.