In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
Interesting as Sonia Sodha is a leader writer for the Observer
I don't really see why it should be a left/right issue at all. I know our political terminology is pretty lose, but the core ideologies people tend to claim are often more about economic matters, and social issues don't map so neatly onto those ideologies.
Presumably why people add on things like traditional or progressive to try to cover an expected set of social values as well, but it just doesn't fit so well.
The Conservative v Social Liberal/Progressive' divide is just as clear as the Socialist/Social Democrat v Conservative/Economic Liberal divide
Not from where I'm standing. Plenty of pretty liberal Tories. It might well be the conservative vs social liberal is relatively clear, but conservative doesn't always align to Conservative, nor liberal to Liberal/Labour. So you still end up with a mixture and people nominally on the left or right not agreeing with the majority grouping.
Plenty of pretty socially conservative, anti Woke traditional Labour voters too, hence the Redwall.
Quite, and that was my point - it's not exactly revolutionary to note people can be at a wide range on the spectrum, economically or socially, within the same party. But tribalism can create an expectation that party members should support/oppose something like this, even if the main reason people were in that tribe has nothing whatsoever to do with something like gender issues. Suddenly such an issue becomes left or right in many peoples' eyes, when there's little reason it should.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Yep. And 20 years ago none had done it. That's not an unusual trajectory for social reform.
A kind of progressive herd mentality?
I don't think social reform in democracies can evolve successfully on that basis. It has to build mainstream acceptance.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Bear in mind that the Scot Tories allowed a free vote which 3 of their members took advantage of to vote for the proposal. SNP, Lab and Greens applied the whips despite which a number of SNP MSPs rebelled - effectively ending the ministerial career of one member and scotching the careers of the others. The vote would have been closer had all MSPs been free to follow their consciences. However Sturgeon only does divisive.
Have you allowed for the possibility that parliamentarians might have engaged in a tricky and controversial topic to come to a considered conclusion, which inevitably some people will reasonably disagree with? At the party level only the Conservatives were opposed and even then four refused to vote that way with two abstentions and two voting for? Scotland isn't proposing anything fundamentally different from legislation already in place or in flight in such countries as Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, France
There is also the point that Mr Sunak has completely screwed up, within a very few days, what was shaping up to be a good start in relations with the SG after the mess his predecessors made of it.
I would be surprised if it wasn’t discussed at Sunak and Sturgeon’s recent meeting. I would be very surprised if Sunak didn’t raise the effect on the wider UK, and suggest that a compromise should be reached. I would be extremely surprised if Sturgeon didn’t refuse to compromise, partly for political reasons, partly because she is 100% supportive of the provisions of the bill, and partly because the Greens would remove support from her government if she backed down. I would be flabbergasted if Alister Jack isn’t delighted at the opportunity to issue a Section 35 order, and if he isn’t hoping to issue many, many more.
Your first two points seem sensible enough.
At your 3rd, I started to be sceptical of your take on this because of your apparent assumption that Rishi Sunak has no relevant decent intelligence about the Sturgeon team he'd be negotiating with, or that if he does possess decent intelligence he'd waste his time in that fashion. If you know beforehand how Sturgeon will react to a point that Sunak raises at a meeting, Sunak probably knows too.
At your 4th point, you lose it completely. How many are "many, many"? Sounds like 10+. The only people who'd jump for joy at that prospect would be the YeSNP. Won't happen.
Bear in mind that Sunak can call an independence referendum and neither the announcement nor the plebiscite itself will be timetabled or shaped to help the YeSNP out.
PS It would be f***ing hilarious if the Greens brought Sturgeon's government down. I hope they do. Unlikely, though.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Norway has seen a 300% increase in "female" sex offenders. Whether in fact these are females or men claiming to be women is unclear.
There are 2 aspects to consider:
1. The Bill itself 2. How it interacts with other legislation.
Simply comparing the Scottish Bill with Bills in other countries does not tell you anything very useful because you are missing information in part 2. This is conveniently forgotten. Equalities legislation in other countries is not the same as the EA. Data collection is very different and inconsistent.
The other point that is conveniently forgotten is that in order to know what the effects of the legislation are, you have to collect data about how it works in practice. In particular you need to know, inter alia, how many men say they are female, when they do so, how many have gender dysphoria, whether those that don't have some other sexual fetish or paraphilia which is the reason for wanting to change gender, how many of those who do change gender commit offences and what type and whether this is more or less than males in general, whether women are withdrawing from spaces and activities they previously enjoyed and so on. Lots of data is needed to see whether the fears are real or not.
And, yet, curiously, this data is not being collected. Belgium has refused to do so, for instance. Such data as exists suggests that there is a problem in that men claiming to be trans (whether or not they have been medically diagnosed as dysphoric) are over-represented amongst those convicted of sexual offences against women. The 2021 U.K. census has some interesting statistics on that. But a lot more data is needed.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the GRR Bill is that Holyrood specifically voted against an amendment which would have mandated the collection of data on the Bill's impact. Why? What is the SNP so afraid of? If womens' fears are overblown having such data would have reassured them. Instead, it will be harder to obtain the necessary data. It tends to suggest that Holyrood does not want to know and does not want women to know either.
Those who genuinely have gender dysphoria have a right to change gender. No-one disputes that.
But answer me this: why should someone who does NOT have gender dysphoria have the right to change gender, to falsify their birth certificate and to take advantage of spaces and activities reserved for those of the opposite sex for good reason?
Why should men who obtain sexual satisfaction from masturbating (often in public, often in women's spaces) while wearing womens clothes be given the legal right to call themselves women? This Bill gives people like these that right. Why?
Are women so unworthy of dignity and basic respect that pandering to particular male sexual fetishes is so much more important?
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Norway has seen a 300% increase in "female" sex offenders. Whether in fact these are females or men claiming to be women is unclear.
There are 2 aspects to consider:
1. The Bill itself 2. How it interacts with other legislation.
Simply comparing the Scottish Bill with Bills in other countries does not tell you anything very useful because you are missing information in part 2. This is conveniently forgotten. Equalities legislation in other countries is not the same as the EA. Data collection is very different and inconsistent.
The other point that is conveniently forgotten is that in order to know what the effects of the legislation are, you have to collect data about how it works in practice. In particular you need to know, inter alia, how many men say they are female, when they do so, how many have gender dysphoria, whether those that don't have some other sexual fetish or paraphilia which is the reason for wanting to change gender, how many of those who do change gender commit offences and what type and whether this is more or less than males in general, whether women are withdrawing from spaces and activities they previously enjoyed and so on. Lots of data is needed to see whether the fears are real or not.
And, yet, curiously, this data is not being collected. Belgium has refused to do so, for instance. Such data as exists suggests that there is a problem in that men claiming to be trans (whether or not they have been medically diagnosed as dysphoric) are over-represented amongst those convicted of sexual offences against women. The 2021 U.K. census has some interesting statistics on that. But a lot more data is needed.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the GRR Bill is that Holyrood specifically voted against an amendment which would have mandated the collection of data on the Bill's impact. Why? What is the SNP so afraid of? If womens' fears are overblown having such data would have reassured them. Instead, it will be harder to obtain the necessary data. It tends to suggest that Holyrood does not want to know and does not want women to know either.
Those who genuinely have gender dysphoria have a right to change gender. No-one disputes that.
But answer me this: why should someone who does NOT have gender dysphoria have the right to change gender, to falsify their birth certificate and to take advantage of spaces and activities reserved for those of the opposite sex for good reason?
Why should men who obtain sexual satisfaction from masturbating (often in public, often in women's spaces) while wearing womens clothes be given the legal right to call themselves women? This Bill gives people like these that right. Why?
Are women so unworthy of dignity and basic respect that pandering to particular male sexual fetishes is so much more important?
Why are there no qualifications for such a change? No conditions? No proof or evidence? And in the absence of such evidence, how can any self-declaration be deemed fraudulent?
Why is there no basis on which an application can be refused? Not even for those convicted of sexual offences against women?
Why is a child allowed to make such an important decision after a mere 3 months?
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Norway has seen a 300% increase in "female" sex offenders. Whether in fact these are females or men claiming to be women is unclear.
There are 2 aspects to consider:
1. The Bill itself 2. How it interacts with other legislation.
Simply comparing the Scottish Bill with Bills in other countries does not tell you anything very useful because you are missing information in part 2. This is conveniently forgotten. Equalities legislation in other countries is not the same as the EA. Data collection is very different and inconsistent.
The other point that is conveniently forgotten is that in order to know what the effects of the legislation are, you have to collect data about how it works in practice. In particular you need to know, inter alia, how many men say they are female, when they do so, how many have gender dysphoria, whether those that don't have some other sexual fetish or paraphilia which is the reason for wanting to change gender, how many of those who do change gender commit offences and what type and whether this is more or less than males in general, whether women are withdrawing from spaces and activities they previously enjoyed and so on. Lots of data is needed to see whether the fears are real or not.
And, yet, curiously, this data is not being collected. Belgium has refused to do so, for instance. Such data as exists suggests that there is a problem in that men claiming to be trans (whether or not they have been medically diagnosed as dysphoric) are over-represented amongst those convicted of sexual offences against women. The 2021 U.K. census has some interesting statistics on that. But a lot more data is needed.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the GRR Bill is that Holyrood specifically voted against an amendment which would have mandated the collection of data on the Bill's impact. Why? What is the SNP so afraid of? If womens' fears are overblown having such data would have reassured them. Instead, it will be harder to obtain the necessary data. It tends to suggest that Holyrood does not want to know and does not want women to know either.
Those who genuinely have gender dysphoria have a right to change gender. No-one disputes that.
But answer me this: why should someone who does NOT have gender dysphoria have the right to change gender, to falsify their birth certificate and to take advantage of spaces and activities reserved for those of the opposite sex for good reason?
Why should men who obtain sexual satisfaction from masturbating (often in public, often in women's spaces) while wearing womens clothes be given the legal right to call themselves women? This Bill gives people like these that right. Why?
Are women so unworthy of dignity and basic respect that pandering to particular male sexual fetishes is so much more important?
Why are there no qualifications for such a change? No conditions? No proof or evidence? And in the absence of such evidence, how can any self-declaration be deemed fraudulent?
Why is there no basis on which an application can be refused? Not even for those convicted of sexual offences against women?
Why is a child allowed to make such an important decision after a mere 3 months?
"The Gender Recognition Reform Bill was still under consideration in Holyrood when the key Court of Session judgement was handed down on December 13. Indeed, at that date, Stage 3 of the Bill (its final amending stage) lay two weeks in the future.
The smart thing for the Scottish ministers to have done would have been to pause the Bill at that point and to reconsider it, in consultation with the UK Government, to try to figure out how its policy ambitions could be realised without having the “adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters” which section 35 of the Scotland Act prohibits.
But the Scottish ministers did not do the smart thing: they ploughed ahead. Ideology won out, where it should have yielded to a more sober and pragmatic judgment.
Section 35 gives the Secretary of State a 28-day period in which to decide whether he should exercise his power to block a Bill passed by Holyrood. Whatever he decides, we shall know very soon. And, whatever he decides, the matter is bound to end up in court."
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Norway has seen a 300% increase in "female" sex offenders. Whether in fact these are females or men claiming to be women is unclear.
There are 2 aspects to consider:
1. The Bill itself 2. How it interacts with other legislation.
Simply comparing the Scottish Bill with Bills in other countries does not tell you anything very useful because you are missing information in part 2. This is conveniently forgotten. Equalities legislation in other countries is not the same as the EA. Data collection is very different and inconsistent.
The other point that is conveniently forgotten is that in order to know what the effects of the legislation are, you have to collect data about how it works in practice. In particular you need to know, inter alia, how many men say they are female, when they do so, how many have gender dysphoria, whether those that don't have some other sexual fetish or paraphilia which is the reason for wanting to change gender, how many of those who do change gender commit offences and what type and whether this is more or less than males in general, whether women are withdrawing from spaces and activities they previously enjoyed and so on. Lots of data is needed to see whether the fears are real or not.
And, yet, curiously, this data is not being collected. Belgium has refused to do so, for instance. Such data as exists suggests that there is a problem in that men claiming to be trans (whether or not they have been medically diagnosed as dysphoric) are over-represented amongst those convicted of sexual offences against women. The 2021 U.K. census has some interesting statistics on that. But a lot more data is needed.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the GRR Bill is that Holyrood specifically voted against an amendment which would have mandated the collection of data on the Bill's impact. Why? What is the SNP so afraid of? If womens' fears are overblown having such data would have reassured them. Instead, it will be harder to obtain the necessary data. It tends to suggest that Holyrood does not want to know and does not want women to know either.
Those who genuinely have gender dysphoria have a right to change gender. No-one disputes that.
But answer me this: why should someone who does NOT have gender dysphoria have the right to change gender, to falsify their birth certificate and to take advantage of spaces and activities reserved for those of the opposite sex for good reason?
Why should men who obtain sexual satisfaction from masturbating (often in public, often in women's spaces) while wearing womens clothes be given the legal right to call themselves women? This Bill gives people like these that right. Why?
Are women so unworthy of dignity and basic respect that pandering to particular male sexual fetishes is so much more important?
Why are there no qualifications for such a change? No conditions? No proof or evidence? And in the absence of such evidence, how can any self-declaration be deemed fraudulent?
Why is there no basis on which an application can be refused? Not even for those convicted of sexual offences against women?
Why is a child allowed to make such an important decision after a mere 3 months?
A boy or man could boast on Facebook and Twitter every day, saying "Ah'm about to make a false declaration, lol. Ah'm as male as anything, but ah'm jus' saying I'm a lassie so I can get into lassies' changing rooms", right up until the day he makes the declaration that he's lived as a girl or woman for three months.
I can't remember a previous occasion when the only sane position held by any of the main parties has been the Tory one. The Tories were right on devolution in 1997, but the proposal in favour of devolution wasn't insane.
Tory strategists must be wondering how they can create an analogy to the current Scottish hoohah south of the border.
Even if you’re a Scot whose against the legislation I’m sure sure Sturgeon will make the point that the next time it could be something you agree with .
Westminster blocking legislation voted through by the elected representatives of the Scottish People is appalling .
Er... hold on a minute. Section 35 Scotland Act (1998) states:
"Under Section 35 of the Scotland Act, UK ministers can stop a bill getting royal assent.
The secretary of state for Scotland can do so if they think a Holyrood bill would modify laws reserved to Westminster and have an "adverse effect" on how those laws apply."
Tony Blair and Donald Dewar put section 35 into the Scotland Act for just this scenario, where a Holyrood decision would have UK wide repercussions without the assent of the UK/British Parliament.
If you disagree with Westminster blocking this legislation then you disagree with the way Blair envisaged devolution in the first place...
a fight with SNP does appear helpful to the Tory cause... I got round to watching BBC QT last night (last week's), the range of opinion seems very firmly against the govt's handling of strikes (not just the NHS), that plus the optics of millionaire Tory ministers lecturing workers is v poor indeed....a fight with Nicola S on a culture war theme is just what the `spin' doctors have ordered....
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
LOL, so they’re done looking for more Wagner recruits from Russian prisons, and are now looking for poor Africans and Indians to prop up their ill-equipped Potemkin army.
That’ll work well, as the Western tanks start rolling into Eastern Ukraine, and all the new recruits have is an AK-47 with ammunition rations, no cold-weather clothing, and told to go looting to feed themselves.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Norway has seen a 300% increase in "female" sex offenders. Whether in fact these are females or men claiming to be women is unclear.
There are 2 aspects to consider:
1. The Bill itself 2. How it interacts with other legislation.
Simply comparing the Scottish Bill with Bills in other countries does not tell you anything very useful because you are missing information in part 2. This is conveniently forgotten. Equalities legislation in other countries is not the same as the EA. Data collection is very different and inconsistent.
The other point that is conveniently forgotten is that in order to know what the effects of the legislation are, you have to collect data about how it works in practice. In particular you need to know, inter alia, how many men say they are female, when they do so, how many have gender dysphoria, whether those that don't have some other sexual fetish or paraphilia which is the reason for wanting to change gender, how many of those who do change gender commit offences and what type and whether this is more or less than males in general, whether women are withdrawing from spaces and activities they previously enjoyed and so on. Lots of data is needed to see whether the fears are real or not.
And, yet, curiously, this data is not being collected. Belgium has refused to do so, for instance. Such data as exists suggests that there is a problem in that men claiming to be trans (whether or not they have been medically diagnosed as dysphoric) are over-represented amongst those convicted of sexual offences against women. The 2021 U.K. census has some interesting statistics on that. But a lot more data is needed.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the GRR Bill is that Holyrood specifically voted against an amendment which would have mandated the collection of data on the Bill's impact. Why? What is the SNP so afraid of? If womens' fears are overblown having such data would have reassured them. Instead, it will be harder to obtain the necessary data. It tends to suggest that Holyrood does not want to know and does not want women to know either.
Those who genuinely have gender dysphoria have a right to change gender. No-one disputes that.
But answer me this: why should someone who does NOT have gender dysphoria have the right to change gender, to falsify their birth certificate and to take advantage of spaces and activities reserved for those of the opposite sex for good reason?
Why should men who obtain sexual satisfaction from masturbating (often in public, often in women's spaces) while wearing womens clothes be given the legal right to call themselves women? This Bill gives people like these that right. Why?
Are women so unworthy of dignity and basic respect that pandering to particular male sexual fetishes is so much more important?
Why are there no qualifications for such a change? No conditions? No proof or evidence? And in the absence of such evidence, how can any self-declaration be deemed fraudulent?
Why is there no basis on which an application can be refused? Not even for those convicted of sexual offences against women?
Why is a child allowed to make such an important decision after a mere 3 months?
It’s almost as if the Scottish government are going out of their way to pick a fight over sovereignty with the British government.
While the SNP obviously see that division as a laudable aim, I’m not sure they’ve chosen the right issue as their hill to die on, with a clear majority of Scots opposed to the legislation.
Comments
At your 3rd, I started to be sceptical of your take on this because of your apparent assumption that Rishi Sunak has no relevant decent intelligence about the Sturgeon team he'd be negotiating with, or that if he does possess decent intelligence he'd waste his time in that fashion. If you know beforehand how Sturgeon will react to a point that Sunak raises at a meeting, Sunak probably knows too.
At your 4th point, you lose it completely. How many are "many, many"? Sounds like 10+. The only people who'd jump for joy at that prospect would be the YeSNP. Won't happen.
Bear in mind that Sunak can call an independence referendum and neither the announcement nor the plebiscite itself will be timetabled or shaped to help the YeSNP out.
PS It would be f***ing hilarious if the Greens brought Sturgeon's government down. I hope they do. Unlikely, though.
There are 2 aspects to consider:
1. The Bill itself
2. How it interacts with other legislation.
Simply comparing the Scottish Bill with Bills in other countries does not tell you anything very useful because you are missing information in part 2. This is conveniently forgotten. Equalities legislation in other countries is not the same as the EA. Data collection is very different and inconsistent.
The other point that is conveniently forgotten is that in order to know what the effects of the legislation are, you have to collect data about how it works in practice. In particular you need to know, inter alia, how many men say they are female, when they do so, how many have gender dysphoria, whether those that don't have some other sexual fetish or paraphilia which is the reason for wanting to change gender, how many of those who do change gender commit offences and what type and whether this is more or less than males in general, whether women are withdrawing from spaces and activities they previously enjoyed and so on. Lots of data is needed to see whether the fears are real or not.
And, yet, curiously, this data is not being collected. Belgium has refused to do so, for instance. Such data as exists suggests that there is a problem in that men claiming to be trans (whether or not they have been medically diagnosed as dysphoric) are over-represented amongst those convicted of sexual offences against women. The 2021 U.K. census has some interesting statistics on that. But a lot more data is needed.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the GRR Bill is that Holyrood specifically voted against an amendment which would have mandated the collection of data on the Bill's impact. Why? What is the SNP so afraid of? If womens' fears are overblown having such data would have reassured them. Instead, it will be harder to obtain the necessary data. It tends to suggest that Holyrood does not want to know and does not want women to know either.
Those who genuinely have gender dysphoria have a right to change gender. No-one disputes that.
But answer me this: why should someone who does NOT have gender dysphoria have the right to change gender, to falsify their birth certificate and to take advantage of spaces and activities reserved for those of the opposite sex for good reason?
Why should men who obtain sexual satisfaction from masturbating (often in public, often in women's spaces) while wearing womens clothes be given the legal right to call themselves women? This Bill gives people like these that right. Why?
Are women so unworthy of dignity and basic respect that pandering to particular male sexual fetishes is so much more important?
Why is there no basis on which an application can be refused? Not even for those convicted of sexual offences against women?
Why is a child allowed to make such an important decision after a mere 3 months?
"The Gender Recognition Reform Bill was still under consideration in Holyrood when the key Court of Session judgement was handed down on December 13. Indeed, at that date, Stage 3 of the Bill (its final amending stage) lay two weeks in the future.
The smart thing for the Scottish ministers to have done would have been to pause the Bill at that point and to reconsider it, in consultation with the UK Government, to try to figure out how its policy ambitions could be realised without having the “adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters” which section 35 of the Scotland Act prohibits.
But the Scottish ministers did not do the smart thing: they ploughed ahead. Ideology won out, where it should have yielded to a more sober and pragmatic judgment.
Section 35 gives the Secretary of State a 28-day period in which to decide whether he should exercise his power to block a Bill passed by Holyrood. Whatever he decides, we shall know very soon. And, whatever he decides, the matter is bound to end up in court."
I can't remember a previous occasion when the only sane position held by any of the main parties has been the Tory one. The Tories were right on devolution in 1997, but the proposal in favour of devolution wasn't insane.
Tory strategists must be wondering how they can create an analogy to the current Scottish hoohah south of the border.
"Under Section 35 of the Scotland Act, UK ministers can stop a bill getting royal assent.
Tony Blair and Donald Dewar put section 35 into the Scotland Act for just this scenario, where a Holyrood decision would have UK wide repercussions without the assent of the UK/British Parliament.The secretary of state for Scotland can do so if they think a Holyrood bill would modify laws reserved to Westminster and have an "adverse effect" on how those laws apply."
If you disagree with Westminster blocking this legislation then you disagree with the way Blair envisaged devolution in the first place...
https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chat-gpt-what-do-you-think/
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
That’ll work well, as the Western tanks start rolling into Eastern Ukraine, and all the new recruits have is an AK-47 with ammunition rations, no cold-weather clothing, and told to go looting to feed themselves.
While the SNP obviously see that division as a laudable aim, I’m not sure they’ve chosen the right issue as their hill to die on, with a clear majority of Scots opposed to the legislation.