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

[BlueRiver]

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

That is a helpful intervention and the first time anybody has presented anything to counter Uly's view. Hopefully, something factored into the passage (or otherwise) of the Bill. 

 

To be fair to Judy his article regarding Norway about the increase in rape carried out by women was somewhat linked to opposing that viewpoint as well. Not entirely but it does indicate to a degree that women would be at risk from some of these individuals. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by BlueRiver

[Ked]

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

That is a helpful intervention and the first time anybody has presented anything to counter Uly's view. Hopefully, something factored into the passage (or otherwise) of the Bill. 

I have no real knowledge of it.

But those were some of her points.

Both cited evidence.

I'm supposing they are correct as she was not corrected .

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

 

To be fair to Judy his article regarding Norway about the increase in rape carried out by women was somewhat linked to opposing that viewpoint as well. Not entirely but it does indicate to a degree that women would be at risk from some of these individuals. 

Yes I noticed that too but still a striking stat. 

[BlueRiver]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes I noticed that too but still a striking stat. 

 

Very much so. The only reason I say it doesn't completely combat Uly's view is that there's no context around where these rapes have taken place. So we can't be sure if they were in female only 'safe spaces' etc 

[Ked]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

The spectator article which notes a 300 per cent rise in rape in Norway committed by women , after their GRC act came into play 

 

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-the-snp-really-want-to-copy-norway-s-gender-revolution/

 

 

The woman on channel 4 really challenged the stonewall guy on how safe it had proven internationally.

Was good and respectful debate .

But there's no way they can agree.

The bill imo shows scant regard to woman's rights on this.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

Very much so. The only reason I say it doesn't completely combat Uly's view is that there's no context around where these rapes have taken place. So we can't be sure if they were in female only 'safe spaces' etc 

Yes i acknowledge that. Be good to see the stats more fully. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Ked said:

The bill imo shows scant regard to woman's rights on this.

 

Agreed , Might try catch up on that on catch up tv or check twitter . sounds a robust debate. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

I have no real knowledge of it.

But those were some of her points.

Both cited evidence.

I'm supposing they are correct as she was not corrected .

 

All fair enough. I actually have no dog in the fight beyond my daughter's interest but the militant  behaviours I have seen here have kind of clouded the issue for me. 

It could well be that the bill is not a good thing but it needs scrutiny and grown up debate rather than abuse and intimidation. 

 

I never thought i would write this but we have to trust our elected members to get it right. The two sides seem far too polarised and militant to even look for consensus or resolution so my fear is nobody will be happy. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

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

The two sides seem far too polarised

Thats true and the reason why is there can be no womens right to safety respect and dignity if those who self ID can access women's only safe spaces.  Its squaring the peg which can never happen. 

[Ked]

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

All fair enough. I actually have no dog in the fight beyond my daughter's interest but the militant  behaviours I have seen here have kind of clouded the issue for me. 

It could well be that the bill is not a good thing but it needs scrutiny and grown up debate rather than abuse and intimidation. 

 

I never thought i would write this but we have to trust our elected members to get it right. The two sides seem far too polarised and militant to even look for consensus or resolution so my fear is nobody will be happy. 

Even though they argued respectfully both interviewees were miles apart.

I think the bill should have disallowed convicted sex offenders from gaining a certificate. 

Other nods to the safety of women asked for by some perhaps.

I'm not so sure they've gotten this right.

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

11 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Thats true and the reason why is there can be no womens right to safety respect and dignity if those who self ID can access women's only safe spaces.  Its squaring the peg which can never happen. 

I would expect safety to be a fundamental of any change in legislation, presumably with an equality impact assessment etc and assessments of any kind to be evidence based.  With respect, those assessments should be carried out without bias. 

 

10 minutes ago, Ked said:

Even though they argued respectfully both interviewees were miles apart.

I think the bill should have disallowed convicted sex offenders from gaining a certificate. 

Other nods to the safety of women asked for by some perhaps.

I'm not so sure they've gotten this right.

 

I can't pretend I know enough about it but what you propose certainly sounds reasonable.  Are there any provisions like that? 

I'm naive enough to think that a grown up democratic society can generally work through difficult and contentious issues. Even if the protagonists couldn't find resolution at least it sounded like a constructive debate. 

[Ked]

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

I would expect safety to be a fundamental of any change in legislation, presumably with an equality impact assessment etc and assessments of any kind to be evidence based.  With respect, those assessments should be carried out without bias. 

 

I can't pretend I know enough about it but what you propose certainly sounds reasonable.  Are there any provisions like that? 

I'm naive enough to think that a grown up democratic society can generally work through difficult and contentious issues. Even if the protagonists couldn't find resolution at least it sounded like a constructive debate. 

No there are no provisions/ammendments to the bill.

This was the point I felt she really wanted to make.

 

 

[BlueRiver]

40 minutes ago, Ked said:

Even though they argued respectfully both interviewees were miles apart.

I think the bill should have disallowed convicted sex offenders from gaining a certificate. 

Other nods to the safety of women asked for by some perhaps.

I'm not so sure they've gotten this right.

 

 

I agree with you. However I also think such an amendment would've made the bill vulnerable to challenge on human rights grounds if it imposed such a blanket ban. Partly why I don't think it was voted through. 

 

(For what it's worth I think there's a clear argument that such an amendment would be completely compatible with human rights law when balancing the rights of that individual against public safety concerns but I doubt the SNP want the headache)

[BlueRiver]

11 minutes ago, Ked said:

No there are no provisions/ammendments to the bill.

This was the point I felt she really wanted to make.

 

 

 

Didn't the risk-based approach amendment pass? They can get a GRC based on an evaluation of their chances of reopening? 

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 minutes ago, Ked said:

No there are no provisions/ammendments to the bill.

This was the point I felt she really wanted to make.

 

 

I'm perplexed that there isnt but it should be relatively easy to remedy I would have thought. And I can't imagine such amendments would be opposed. 

There will have been consultations and opportunities for parliamentary committees and stakeholders to propose changes I assume? 

Apologies, not expecting you to know the answers. I'm just thinking out loud. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

 

 

Gender recognition reform: “some predatory men will take advantage of this” says Cherry (holyrood.com)

[JudyJudyJudy]

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Powerful stuff 

 

 

 

 

[BlueRiver]

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

I'm perplexed that there isnt but it should be relatively easy to remedy I would have thought. And I can't imagine such amendments would be opposed. 

There will have been consultations and opportunities for parliamentary committees and stakeholders to propose changes I assume? 

Apologies, not expecting you to know the answers. I'm just thinking out loud. 

 

The amendments banning convicted sex offenders from gaining one  was  voted down just last night I believe. 

 

Although I think one regarding a risk-based approach to granting them to offenders may have passed or was expected to last night? 

 

There will be options for it but this is ar the stage where they're looking to vote it into law. Any laws can be amended in future but we're at the passage stage right now. Any amendments after the next couple days would be ifs and maybes in future. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Wings Over Scotland | The Disgraces Of Scotland

[XB52]

2 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

This is it for me, men telling women how to feel and when to feel at risk is not on.

We've had nothing but a man telling us how women feel for the last few months/years on here. He has been carrying out a transphobic campaign relentlessly. I take it that's OK with you 

[BlueRiver]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/disbelief-sex-offenders-permitted-change-28783804.amp

 

It's from the Express but covers what happened last night @i wish jj was my dad

[BlueRiver]

Just now, XB52 said:

We've had nothing but a man telling us how women feel for the last few months/years on here. He has been carrying out a transphobic campaign relentlessly. I take it that's OK with you 

 

He has been pointing out and providing examples of women who echo his arguments though to make his points. 

 

Perhaps he listened to them and agrees with them? 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

 

The amendments banning convicted sex offenders from gaining one  was  voted down just last night I believe. 

 

Although I think one regarding a risk-based approach to granting them to offenders may have passed or was expected to last night? 

 

There will be options for it but this is ar the stage where they're looking to vote it into law. Any laws can be amended in future but we're at the passage stage right now. Any amendments after the next couple days would be ifs and maybes in future. 

To be honest there's some confusion about what has been passed or not.

 

I hope that tomorrow there is a summary of what the bill entails. I am still not entirely clear about sex offenders and their rights to a GRC .

 

 I am also not clear about the legalities of anyone stating that a person cannot change sex. I have an ominous feeling that if people who believe this state it  openly they may be done under the hate crime legislation . Let that sink in.,  

[i wish jj was my dad]

2 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/disbelief-sex-offenders-permitted-change-28783804.amp

 

It's from the Express but covers what happened last night @i wish jj was my dad

Cheers. I don't understand the motivation for opposing that at all. 

[XB52]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

 

He has been pointing out and providing examples of women who echo his arguments though to make his points. 

 

Perhaps he listened to them and agrees with them? 

 

He is a campaigner for the LGB alliance, who hate transgender people.

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

We've had nothing but a man telling us how women feel for the last few months/years on here. He has been carrying out a transphobic campaign relentlessly. I take it that's OK with you 

Can you please enlighten me why a person " telling us how women feel" is " part of being " transphobic " ?: 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, XB52 said:

who hate transgender people.

They really dont. Stop reading ludicrous comments. 

[BlueRiver]

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

Cheers. I don't understand the motivation for opposing that at all. 

 

All I could consider was what I laid out further up regarding potential conflict between a blanket ban and human rights law. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

He has been pointing out and providing examples of women who echo his arguments though to make his points. 

 

Perhaps he listened to them and agrees with them? 

 

I have decided to answer a couple of his points as i tend to ignore him really. He is all sound bites. Zero substance to his arguments. Ill re ignore him again. 

 

And as you clearly note I have given examples etc of people with whom i agree with, Many in fact. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

10 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/disbelief-sex-offenders-permitted-change-28783804.amp

 

It's from the Express but covers what happened last night @i wish jj was my dad

Incredulous really.  No wonder certain words are trending tonight about the SNP on twitter. lll not repeat them as I hate the word but it isn't complementary., 

[i wish jj was my dad]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

All I could consider was what I laid out further up regarding potential conflict between a blanket ban and human rights law. 

There has to be a way through that you would think. If it is some kind of professional risk based assessment then that should go some way to address reasonable concerns. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

All I could consider was what I laid out further up regarding potential conflict between a blanket ban and human rights law. 

The compromise in all of this could have been identification as " trans" . Its that simple i feel. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

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

some kind of professional risk based assessment then that should go some way to address reasonable concerns. 

Criminal justice social work is on its knees in Scotland as it is.  They wouldn't have time to make these assessments which can at times be just subjective. Potential abusers can be quite devious and manipulative.  Plus the calibre of workers in the SCSWS can leave a lot to be desired. Just been out for dinner earlier with a mate who is a Criminal Justice worker and telling me its a " nightmare " now. 

[BlueRiver]

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

There has to be a way through that you would think. If it is some kind of professional risk based assessment then that should go some way to address reasonable concerns. 

 

That's what an additional amendment that was expected to pass (I think) intended to introduce to the bill. 

 

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

The compromise in all of this could have been identification as " trans" . Its that simple i feel. 

 

To be honest I really think there were a lot of compromises before this point. For example, no one really questions or cares about the current framework. Less wide sweeping reforms probably could've passed with much less comment. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

Less wide sweeping reforms probably could've passed with much less comment. 

Case of giving people an inch . and all  

 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

" The unamended bill hands known rapists a free pass into women’s spaces which cannot be challenged without risking arrest for hate crime." 

 

So disturbing. 

[Ked]

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

There has to be a way through that you would think. If it is some kind of professional risk based assessment then that should go some way to address reasonable concerns. 

Professionally assessed. 

If convicted of sexual offence or on trial for one that  should exclude you .

These were reasonable asks.

The assessment of risk does not address the concerns of the interviewee I heard.

 

 

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

" The unamended bill hands known rapists a free pass into women’s spaces which cannot be challenged without risking arrest for hate crime." 

 

So disturbing. 

 

Yep. 

 

Ked above me has summed my view up on it quite well. 

 

I'm really uncomfortable at the thought of an alleged victim of sexual violence having to sit in court and refer to their alleged attacker using their preferred pronouns just because they've slapped a dress on and claim to be female as well. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

22 minutes ago, XB52 said:

He has been carrying out a transphobic campaign relentlessly.

You really need evidence for this kind of statement. Its rather offensive. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

Yep. 

 

Ked above me has summed my view up on it quite well. 

 

I'm really uncomfortable at the thought of an alleged victim of sexual violence having to sit in court and refer to their alleged attacker using their preferred pronouns just because they've slapped a dress on and claim to be female as well. 

its horrific. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

Professionally assessed. 

If convicted of sexual offence or on trial for one that  should exclude you .

These were reasonable asks.

The assessment of risk does not address the concerns of the interviewee I heard.

 

 

I've no issue whatsoever with any sex offender being disqualified. If an assessment it a way round a potential Human Rights labyrinth (no sure if it is) then I can see some logic in it - if that is what it is. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Another fine speech from Ash and my all time sporting shero Martina in complete support . well done Martina 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlueRiver]

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

I've no issue whatsoever with any sex offender being disqualified. If an assessment it a way round a potential Human Rights labyrinth (no sure if it is) then I can see some logic in it - if that is what it is. 

 

I can guarantee you if there was a blanket ban someone like that Dolatowski would find a lawyer to challenge this law on the basis that their right to private life etc is being denied. I don't know where a court would go with it but I'd stake a lot of money that such an action would be raised. 

 

Perhaps with the broad range of sex offences it would be seen to be unreasonable to have such a blanket ban. 

[BlueRiver]

4 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Another fine speech from Ash and my all time sporting shero Martina in complete support . well done Martina 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find it hard to disagree with that. 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Find it hard to disagree with that. 

 

 

Sums up entirely how i feel about it all really. 

 

I am hoping there will be not only challenges to it but it can also be challenged at the supreme court too.  There is going to be a tension between Scotland and  England policies on this. I wonder who this will benefit. ?  

[BlueRiver]

5 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Sums up entirely how i feel about it all really. 

 

I am hoping there will be not only challenges to it but it can also be challenged at the supreme court too.  There is going to be a tension between Scotland and  England policies on this. I wonder who this will benefit. ?  

 

It would lead to a very strange discrepancy between devolved and reserved matters too and how someone is referred to depending on who they're dealing with. 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

15 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

I can guarantee you if there was a blanket ban someone like that Dolatowski would find a lawyer to challenge this law on the basis that their right to private life etc is being denied. I don't know where a court would go with it but I'd stake a lot of money that such an action would be raised. 

 

Perhaps with the broad range of sex offences it would be seen to be unreasonable to have such a blanket ban. 

Most likely and I can picture the twatty human rights lawyer enriching himself already. 

Hopefully, an approach that allows an objective assessment will address reasonable concerns. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

25 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

It would lead to a very strange discrepancy between devolved and reserved matters too and how someone is referred to depending on who they're dealing with. 

 

Yep . 

Edited December 21, 2022 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

Wtf ! 
 

someone send me this link whilst on another thread . 

it is gay related 

 

 

https://daily.jstor.org/ernst-rohm-the-highest-ranking-gay-nazi/