****The All In One LGBTQ+ & Related Issues Mega Thread****

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

A lot of very age mature people voted for the most financially damaging decision the UK has made in living memory

Source ? 

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Source ? 

Aw, FfS look at the voting demographics in the Brexit referendum. It was widely reported and recognised that younger people voted remain. Are you seriously asking me to prove it? Seriously, are you that desperate to pick a fight? 

[i wish jj was my dad]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/&ved=2ahUKEwiL7MrL_4b8AhWMS0EAHeqsDgcQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Jf3IesX3z4SbsioX1Cxz3

[i wish jj was my dad]

I'm not 100% about validity of link above but it was the first one that came up. I am sure that there are others who are much more authoritative. 

I'm giving up trying to reason with a guy who genuinely can't help picking a fight though. 

[Ulysses]

33 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

No I said after 18 people are probably mature enough to make decisions however the brain development science states that the brain is not fully developed until 25 . Therefore there is a tension between policies and science . 

 

You also said "don't ask me", and then had a go at the Scottish Government.  If you don't want to be asked (and you do get very uncomfortable when people ask you anything remotely searching or forensic questions) that's a matter for you - but putting strong opinions out there that aren't backed by the facts is going to draw questions that are not easy for you to answer. 

 

But leaving that aside for a moment, there isn't a "tension between policies and science".  As a society, we collectively form a view that a particular age is a reasonable "age of majority".  We might change that a little over time, though in fact for most purposes it has remained pretty constant in most Western societies over the last couple of generations.  The "age of majority" is not under discussion here, but if you use age as a basis for your position then it is you who have brought up the question, not me.  All I'm doing is pointing out that such an argument is inconsistent, especially when there are very real and very dangerous things that we allow teenagers to do - like driving cars and joining armies - despite the fact that the evidence of brain development science and the psychologists might well say we should stop and think.  

 

Of course, you don't want to stop and think about those other dangerous and deadly issues, because you don't care about them and you don't care about the science.  You have a position that you believe in, regardless of whether or not it is supported by the evidence.  The "science" and the "good articles" to which you link are solely to create an impression that your position is data-driven.  Is that actually a criticism?  Of course not. You're fully entitled to your position, whether or not the data supports it.  I'm just suggesting that you own it and stop kidding on.  

 

[Ulysses]

Anyway, for the benefit of all the reasonable people viewing the thread, regardless of what view you have of the proposed legislation, here's a recap of what I said.

 

- Very similar legislation was passed in Ireland in 2015.

 

- Since then about 1,000 people have used the law to change their legal gender, out of a population of about 5 million.

 

- That change has not led to women's safe spaces in Ireland becoming unsafe in the way that people say will happen if the legislation is passed in Scotland.

 

- None of Ireland's major feminist groups, including the National Women's Council, are seeking repeal of the legislation, and in fact oppose those who would repeal it

 

That is just a summary of what's happened in Ireland over a 7-year period.  Much of the argument about this issue seems to centre on what will or what might happen after the proposed legislation is passed.  The summary above should give a sense of what has happened since such a law came into effect in a country of 5 million people which is culturally not all that different to Scotland.  It doesn't mean you should be in favour of the proposed legislation, and it doesn't mean you should be against.  You just might find it interesting and relevant.  As I said, I carry no flag for the law in Ireland, nor indeed in Scotland.

 

The final reading of the Bill is due to take place in the Parliament chamber on Wednesday December 21st (i.e. tomorrow).

 

If you are interested, you can see details of the final stage (Stage 3) of processing of the Bill by the Parliament at the link below.  You can also use links on that page to see minutes and video recordings of previous stage proceedings of Parliament in relation to the Bill.

 

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/stage-3

 

 

 

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Of course, you don't want to stop and think about those other dangerous and deadly issues, because you don't care about them and you don't care about the science.  You have a position that you believe in, regardless of whether or not it is supported by the evidence.  

I agree with all of your post but this passage reflects my perception. 

 

The guy seems so attached to his view of the world that nothing will ever change it. 

 

That is OK as far as it goes but if you are so aggressive in promoting your views it helps if you can back it up and he hasn't even tried to do that. Instead he has attacked anyone who disagrees or challenges his view. Respectfully or not.

 

I doubt many people will care but he has managed to shift my take from being ignorant and relatively neutral  to being more engaged and much more sceptical about the motivations behind his campaign. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Anyway, for the benefit of all the reasonable people viewing the thread, regardless of what view you have of the proposed legislation, here's a recap of what I said.

 

- Very similar legislation was passed in Ireland in 2015.

 

- Since then about 1,000 people have used the law to change their legal gender, out of a population of about 5 million.

 

- That change has not led to women's safe spaces in Ireland becoming unsafe in the way that people say will happen if the legislation is passed in Scotland.

 

- None of Ireland's major feminist groups, including the National Women's Council, are seeking repeal of the legislation, and in fact oppose those who would repeal it

 

That is just a summary of what's happened in Ireland over a 7-year period.  Much of the argument about this issue seems to centre on what will or what might happen after the proposed legislation is passed.  The summary above should give a sense of what has happened since such a law came into effect in a country of 5 million people which is culturally not all that different to Scotland.  It doesn't mean you should be in favour of the proposed legislation, and it doesn't mean you should be against.  You just might find it interesting and relevant.  As I said, I carry no flag for the law in Ireland, nor indeed in Scotland.

 

The final reading of the Bill is due to take place in the Parliament chamber on Wednesday December 21st (i.e. tomorrow).

 

If you are interested, you can see details of the final stage (Stage 3) of processing of the Bill by the Parliament at the link below.  You can also use links on that page to see minutes and video recordings of previous stage proceedings of Parliament in relation to the Bill.

 

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/stage-3

 

 

 

 

 

This IS a good post. Thanks for sharing. It might help reasonable people understand a complex and admittedly divisive subject a little better.

[ri Alban]

I'll put money on it, that crime involving women has increased in Ireland and Belgium and France or every other country with said Gender ID pish. 

[FJT]

7 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Good for you, pal 👍. I still have a faith that most of us are good ^^^^s and want everyone to be happy and get along. It really shouldn't be difficult. It really shouldn't. 

I will echo this to @Notts1874

😊

[Francis Albert]

9 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I agree with all of your post but this passage reflects my perception. 

 

The guy seems so attached to his view of the world that nothing will ever change it. 

 

That is OK as far as it goes but if you are so aggressive in promoting your views it helps if you can back it up and he hasn't even tried to do that. Instead he has attacked anyone who disagrees or challenges his view. Respectfully or not.

 

I doubt many people will care but he has managed to shift my take from being ignorant and relatively neutral  to being more engaged and much more sceptical about the motivations behind his campaign. 

As I understand it his original motivation that kicked off this part of the thread was to attend a film which aggressive "activists" prevented him doing. That attack on free speach seems not to have caused much concern but for me is at least as important as the other freedoms  dicussed in this "debate". Anyway I dropped out of the "debate" fairly early on and will drop out again.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Francis Albert

[i wish jj was my dad]

33 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As I understand it his original motivation that kicked off this part of the thread was to attend a film which aggressive "activists" prevented him doing. That attack on free speach seems not to have caused much concern but for me is at least as important as the other freedoms  dicussed in this "debate". Anyway I dropped out of the "debate" fairly early on and will drop out again.

We should all have the right to free speech. That's not in question but it should mean that we have to accept others have an equal right to hold and express a different point of view. 

[XB52]

Aussieh has added his knowledge to the subject so surely thread closed now🙂

[Ked]

13 hours ago, JimBett365 said:

 

*I reserve the right to totally change this view in 10 years time when my own daughters become teenagers! 🙈

 

 

😄

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

We should all have the right to free speech. That's not in question but it should mean that we have to accept others have an equal right to hold and express a different point of view. 

Suspect Joanne Moore would agree. 

And JK Rowling.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Francis Albert

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Suspect Joanne Moore would agree. 

And JK Rowling.

I don't know who Joanne Moore is. 

 

But if your point is that she is entitled to express her views without being abused then you will get no argument from me. 

 

Not sure why you are making the point to me though. 

[CF11JamTart]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Suspect Joanne Moore would agree. 

And JK Rowling.

Suzanne Moore?

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I don't know who Joanne Moore is. 

 

But if your point is that she is entitled to express her views without being abused then you will get no argument from me. 

 

Not sure why you are making the point to me though. 

Suzanne Moore. Sorry.

It was a general point not aimed at you or anyone in particular. Quoted your post just because it was relevant to mine.

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, CF11JamTart said:

Suzanne Moore?

Yes. Sorry.

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Suzanne Moore. Sorry.

It was a general point not aimed at you or anyone in particular. Quoted your post just because it was relevant to mine.

That's cool. It is clearly a highly sensitive issue for some and I respect that. 

The issue for me is that the group or individual who were claiming to have been intimidated by militants were trying to do the same to folk who expressed a different view. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Interesting article . Fascinating . Sadly some gay and lesbian men still experience this . 
 

 

https://www.rainbow-project.org/internalised-homophobia/
 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

At least some good news today / last night , from a gender critical perspective which I come from ( which are protected under the Equality act ) 
 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

On 20/12/2022 at 07:11, ri Alban said:

I'll put money on it, that crime involving women has increased in Ireland and Belgium and France or every other country with said Gender ID pish. 

Answer to your question Ri 

 

From Norway after they issued GRC 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

However in very bad news for women and girls ( again from my GC perspectives) and well just plain old fashioned concern 

 

 

 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

I won’t go on and on as everyone knows my views on this issue . It’s a sad day for women and girls in Scotland . Their right to safety and identity should trump

Any groups rights 

 

 

“Once upon a time,
Slavery was legal
Apartheid was legal
The death penalty was legal
Imprisoning gay men was legal
Beating a child was legal.
Yesterday, a high court judge said sending vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda is legal.

 

 

Never assume that legal equals moral or ethical.”

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

[Thunder and Lightning]

45 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

I won’t go on and on as everyone knows my views on this issue . It’s a sad day for women and girls in Scotland . Their right to safety and identity should trump

Any groups rights 

 

 

“Once upon a time,
Slavery was legal
Apartheid was legal
The death penalty was legal
Imprisoning gay men was legal
Beating a child was legal.
Yesterday, a high court judge said sending vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda is legal.

 

 

Never assume that legal equals moral or ethical.”

 

 

The law is an ass.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, Thunder and Lightning said:

 

The law is an ass.

👍👍 

[JudyJudyJudy]

12 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Turns out Joe 'Hates Beckham's Hypocrisy' Lycett performed a number of stand up gigs in Qatar a few years back.

 

Bet Beckham got more wonga though.

Quelle surprise . What an absolute hypocrite .

[Notts1874]

15 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Turns out Joe 'Hates Beckham's Hypocrisy' Lycett performed a number of stand up gigs in Qatar a few years back.

 

Bet Beckham got more wonga though.

 

[Notts1874]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Quelle surprise . What an absolute hypocrite .

Coming from you that's hilarious. Calling someone else a hypocrite. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Imagine people supporting this 

 

 

 

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

Good deflection. Point stands though, the lad’s a hypocrite. 

Not a deflection when he wrote about it years before and why he would never go back. 

[Lord Montpelier]

6 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Imagine people supporting this 

 

 

 

Creepy behaviour. David Torrance wont be getting any support from me on anything again. Well played to the SNP MPs who rebelled. Will be interesting to see if any of the regulars on here try defend this, surely they couldn't stoop as low as that. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Good deflection. Point stands though, the lad’s a hypocrite. 

Their augment is always about " sources " irrespective if the item or story is accurate.  Classic diversion stuff. .

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Creepy behaviour. David Torrance wont be getting any support from me on anything again. Well played to the SNP MPs who rebelled. Will be interesting to see if any of the regulars on here try defend this, surely they couldn't stoop as low as that. 

Oh they will. They will.  Or remain silence.  Silence =   complicity 

[JudyJudyJudy]

In a so called democracy too

 

 

'Utterly disgraceful' scenes as women threatened with arrest and kicked out of Holyrood gender debate - Scottish Daily Express

[Notts1874]

2 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Their augment is always about " sources " irrespective if the item or story is accurate.  Classic diversion stuff. .

What the **** are you on about? Lycett spoke about this years ago. In fact he's included in some routines. It's not a "scoop". 

So you are now backing Beckham, Qatar and The Sun in this. 

 

One day you will learn how the media actually works. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Notts1874 said:

What the **** are you on about? Lycett spoke about this years ago. In fact he's included in some routines. It's not a "scoop". 

So you are now backing Beckham, Qatar and The Sun in this. 

 

One day you will learn how the media actually works. 

Temper,  temper.

 

The point stands that he did gigs in Qatar a few years back.  Even then it was the regressive and oppressive regime it is for gays and lesbians.  He should not have. He knew. Its irrelevant that he has since apologised.  Good career move .

 

And where have i said I am backing the Sun Qatar and Beckham? 

 

Now ill be saying this to you only once.

 

Keep a civil tongue in your tone of writing. Or else you will get no more responses from me and you'll end up peeing against the wind with your comments aimed at me. Calling someone a  " hypocrite" isn't helping any polite discourse.  

[Lord Montpelier]

8 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Oh they will. They will.  Or remain silence.  Silence =   complicity 

Silence will be my bet. An inconvenient truth for them . We'll see. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

In a so called democracy too

 

 

'Utterly disgraceful' scenes as women threatened with arrest and kicked out of Holyrood gender debate - Scottish Daily Express

Does democracy mean that we respect the will of Parliament, i.e. our elected members? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Does democracy mean that we respect the will of Parliament, i.e. our elected members? 

The right to protest if paramount. 

 

" Respect " our members after yesterday. Are you joking ? 

 

Come on. Really. 

[Notts1874]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Temper,  temper.

 

The point stands that he did gigs in Qatar a few years back.  Even then it was the regressive and oppressive regime it is for gays and lesbians.  He should not have. He knew. Its irrelevant that he has since apologised.  Good career move .

 

And where have i said I am backing the Sun Qatar and Beckham? 

 

Now ill be saying this to you only once.

 

Keep a civil tongue in your tone of writing. Or else you will get no more responses from me and you'll end up peeing against the wind with your comments aimed at me. Calling someone a  " hypocrite" isn't helping any polite discourse.  

Is this you trying to tell me what and how I should say something? 

 

It certainly seems like it. Just like the other day when you were telling me to be "careful" 

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Silence will be my bet. An inconvenient truth for them . We'll see. 

Well one thing is for sure I wont be getting involved in any " debates " like Monday night again. I have mainly made all my points clear. People know my views.  Its a disastrous day in Scotland for freedom of thought, fact over fiction, and fundamentally women's and girls right to identity and safe spaces.  

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

The right to protest if paramount. 

 

" Respect " our members after yesterday. Are you joking ? 

 

Come on. Really. 

I'm not against the right to protest but you said 'so called democracy'. 

I am asking if you will accept the outcome of the democratic process? Fairly simple question. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Is this you trying to tell me what and how I should say something? 

 

It certainly seems like it. Just like the other day when you were telling me to be "careful" 

NO i am asking you to engage in polite conversation and not eff and blind and call people " hypocrites" when they arent. 

 

You can say whatever you want I suppose as I'm a firm believer in free speech within the rules and guidelines within the forum and outwith too obviously but ill not engage silly comments.  

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, i wish jj was my dad said:

I'm not against the right to protest but you said 'so called democracy'. 

I am asking if you will accept the outcome of the democratic process? Fairly simple question. 

The women got thrown out because they protested.  Yes it was a outcome of the democratic process. That's true . But it doesn't mean to say I agree with it.  

[i wish jj was my dad]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

The women got thrown out because they protested.  Yes it was a outcome of the democratic process. That's true . But it doesn't mean to say I agree with it.  

I'm not asking you to like it. I am asking if you will accept the democratic process? 

[XB52]

4 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Is this you trying to tell me what and how I should say something? 

 

It certainly seems like it. Just like the other day when you were telling me to be "careful" 

Keep a civil tongue😀😀😀😀. That's a classic. 

[Lord Montpelier]

4 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Well one thing is for sure I wont be getting involved in any " debates " like Monday night again. I have mainly made all my points clear. People know my views.  Its a disastrous day in Scotland for freedom of thought, fact over fiction, and fundamentally women's and girls right to identity and safe spaces.  

Quite agree. This country is going to hell on a handcart, fast.