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

[BlueRiver]

Just now, Bobilius said:

What part of Westminster blocking something voted for by 2/3 of our Parliament would logically make a Maybe or Yes voter convert to a No? 

 

Depends how you frame it. A common sense intervention by the UK government on a matter that impacts equality legislation? A sober view of it and seeing through yet more SNP melodrama? You know, a s.35 order being used in exactly the circumstances it may have been required to be used. 

 

You can't just declare this will move the dial long term off the back of how you view it and what a couple twitter accounts say. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

Depends how you frame it. A common sense intervention by the UK government on a matter that impacts equality legislation? A sober view of it and seeing through yet more SNP melodrama? You know, a s.35 order being used in exactly the circumstances it may have been required to be used. 

 

You can't just declare this will move the dial long term off the back of how you view it and what a couple twitter accounts say. 

👍

[Ked]

9 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

. And, none of it is incompatible with the Equalities Act.

You state that as if fact yet according to those who practice law it does at least complicated he Equalities Act.

Are you saying they're wrong?

[Ked]

5 minutes ago, Bobilius said:

What part of Westminster blocking something voted for by 2/3 of our Parliament would logically make a Maybe or Yes voter convert to a No? 

It won't but they won't care because the bills poorly thought out and unpopular for a variety of reasons.

 

[Bobilius]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Depends how you frame it. A common sense intervention by the UK government on a matter that impacts equality legislation? A sober view of it and seeing through yet more SNP melodrama? You know, a s.35 order being used in exactly the circumstances it may have been required to be used. 

 

You can't just declare this will move the dial long term off the back of how you view it and what a couple twitter accounts say. 

Again the flaw in your argument is that you turn it back to the bill being “SNP melodrama”. It was voted through by 2/3 of our parliament and by MSPs of all parties. It’s not a block on the SNP, it’s a block on the parliament itself.  Hence why MSPs from all parties are speaking out against it.

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Depends how you frame it. A common sense intervention by the UK government on a matter that impacts equality legislation? A sober view of it and seeing through yet more SNP melodrama? You know, a s.35 order being used in exactly the circumstances it may have been required to be used. 

 

You can't just declare this will move the dial long term off the back of how you view it and what a couple twitter accounts say. 

I think they 150 plus amendments to the bill were a massive red flag 🚩 before it went to a vote ! 

[Bobilius]

2 minutes ago, Ked said:

You state that as if fact yet according to those who practice law it does at least complicated he Equalities Act.

Are you saying they're wrong?

I don’t know the specifics but if a 2 year GRR doesn’t undermine the EA, why does a 3 month one? Would an 18 month one undermine it? Does an Irish GRR undermine it?

(Genuinely asking)

[Bobilius]

2 minutes ago, Ked said:

It won't but they won't care because the bills poorly thought out and unpopular for a variety of reasons.

 

Glad you agree.

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

On 14/01/2023 at 14:15, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

Wow! How can you bring yourself to share something a luridly and disingenuously written as that?

 

 

It's like a gutter debate this thread and this is a big stinker floating in it.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Wow! How can you bring yourself to share something a luridly and disingenuously written as that?

 

 

It's like a gutter debate this thread and this is a big stinker floating in it.

Debate , correct word . Don’t like it ? Don’t comment then . Scroll past 

Edited January 16, 2023 by JudyJudyJudy

[Bobilius]

(Apologies if I’m taking this thread off topic. I realise it is meant to be about LGBT issues and not democratic processes or independence. For what it is worth I disagree with the GRR bill in it’s current form but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making about the impact of today’s move by Westminster).

[BlueRiver]

11 minutes ago, Bobilius said:

Again the flaw in your argument is that you turn it back to the bill being “SNP melodrama”. It was voted through by 2/3 of our parliament and by MSPs of all parties. It’s not a block on the SNP, it’s a block on the parliament itself.  Hence why MSPs from all parties are speaking out against it.

 

This isn't a flaw in my argument. It is viewing it through different optics. 

 

Holyrood having checks on it won't shock a lot of people that know how the Scottish Parlimant functions and how our constitution works. You don't even need much of either to understand it. People in the 90s knew what devolution meant and large numbers still do. Just because X number of MSPs passed it won't make a difference to them. 

 

What some maybes might see if yet another SNP-led piece of legislation leading to another direct conflict with Westminster when it wasn't unforeseeable it would do so. Another expensive battle in the courts. Perhaps that distaste results in them deciding to vote No. 

 

Ultimately I don't see it moving us much either way over a prolonged period. You disagree, that's perfectly fine but you're naive to think your interpretation is the only one.

Edited January 16, 2023 by BlueRiver

[Ked]

2 minutes ago, Bobilius said:

I don’t know the specifics but if a 2 year GRR doesn’t undermine the EA, why does a 3 month one? Would an 18 month one undermine it? Does an Irish GRR undermine it?

(Genuinely asking)

For the reasons that you must be aware of.

You know all the jargon so you know all the arguments.Youve  made your mind up.

 

[BlueRiver]

3 minutes ago, Bobilius said:

(Apologies if I’m taking this thread off topic. I realise it is meant to be about LGBT issues and not democratic processes or independence. For what it is worth I disagree with the GRR bill in it’s current form but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making about the impact of today’s move by Westminster).

 

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/12/21/michael-foran-sex-gender-and-the-scotland-act/

 

Noticed you asking about how it would impact equalities legislation etc further up. Without the additional details about the government's advice I think the above is as good an overview as any. 

 

 

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

6 minutes ago, Ked said:

You state that as if fact yet according to those who practice law it does at least complicated he Equalities Act.

Are you saying they're wrong?

 

Who are the people you say practice law that claim this is incompatible with the Equalities Act? No one has shown exactly how it conflicts. So, yes, I am say that your claim is wrong.

 

The so-called experts that I've read claim there is a conflict have only quoted 1 theoretical example: i.e. that if someone with a gender recognition certificate stating they were female was earning more money for a similar job than another woman, that woman would not be able to claim discrimination. 

 

That's it. That's the only example. And it is so outlandish that it may never ever occur.  

 

 

 

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

6 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Debate , correct word . Don’t like it ? Don’t comment then . Scroll past 

 

What you shared isn't debate. It's just posting something that happens to be rotten.

 

Debate is when people have a conversation, exchange views and agree or not. 

[Bobilius]

5 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

This isn't a flaw in my argument. It is viewing it through different optics. 

 

The Holyrood Parliament having checks on it won't shock a lot of people that know how the Scottish Parlimant functions and how our constitution works. You don't even need much of either to understand it. People in the 90s knew what devolution meant and large numbers still do. Just because X number of MSPs passed it won't make a difference to them. 

 

What some maybes might see if yet another SNP-led piece of legislation leading to another direct conflict with Westminster when it wasn't unforeseeable it would do so. Another expensive battle in the courts. Perhaps that distaste results in them deciding to vote No. 

 

Ultimately I don't see it moving us much either way over a prolonged period. You disagree, that's perfectly fine but you're naive to think your interpretation is the only one.

Here’s the results of the vote:

 

Our democratically elected members voted it through comfortably. 
 

What person in their right mind wants our parliament to have it’s legislation blocked by another parliament? Especially one governed by a party we haven’t voted for in 50 odd years. Are we not clever enough to make up our own minds? Do we need someone stepping in and slapping us down? It’s ridiculous. 
 

i disagree with the bill but I’d rather see it go through than have our democratic rights ripped up for Westminster arsepaper. 

[Bobilius]

8 minutes ago, Ked said:

For the reasons that you must be aware of.

You know all the jargon so you know all the arguments.Youve  made your mind up.

 

I’m not in favour of the bill actually. I think 16 is too young and 3 months too short. Although if honest I hadn’t given it much more detailed thought beyond those two headline parts before today and the Westminster intervention. I certainly hadn’t thought about it in relation to the EA. So now I’ve cleared that up for you why don’t you answer the question?

[BlueRiver]

9 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Who are the people you say practice law that claim this is incompatible with the Equalities Act? No one has shown exactly how it conflicts. So, yes, I am say that your claim is wrong.

 

The so-called experts that I've read claim there is a conflict have only quoted 1 theoretical example: i.e. that if someone with a gender recognition certificate stating they were female was earning more money for a similar job than another woman, that woman would not be able to claim discrimination. 

 

That's it. That's the only example. And it is so outlandish that it may never ever occur.  

 

 

 

 

My post right above yours was a blog post on the subject written by a Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University.

 

He seems to see fairly compelling justifications for a s.35 order. 

[Ked]

9 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Who are the people you say practice law that claim this is incompatible with the Equalities Act? No one has shown exactly how it conflicts. So, yes, I am say that your claim is wrong.

 

The so-called experts that I've read claim there is a conflict have only quoted 1 theoretical example: i.e. that if someone with a gender recognition certificate stating they were female was earning more money for a similar job than another woman, that woman would not be able to claim discrimination. 

 

That's it. That's the only example. And it is so outlandish that it may never ever occur.  

 

 

 

Outlandish ?

 

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/amanda-jones-gender-recognition-bill-will-complicate-rather-than-clarify-the-law

 

 

[BlueRiver]

4 minutes ago, Bobilius said:

Here’s the results of the vote:

 

Our democratically elected members voted it through comfortably. 
 

What person in their right mind wants our parliament to have it’s legislation blocked by another parliament? Especially one governed by a party we haven’t voted for in 50 odd years. Are we not clever enough to make up our own minds? Do we need someone stepping in and slapping us down? It’s ridiculous. 
 

i disagree with the bill but I’d rather see it go through than have our democratic rights ripped up for Westminster arsepaper. 

 

Holyrood isn't the final law of the land. This is well known regardless of who votes for what. I don't see the democratic rights being torn up. Certain ones never existed within the devolution framework. 

 

My local council can't do certain things either because they're also governed by a statutory framework. 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

14 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

What you shared isn't debate. It's just posting something that happens to be rotten.

 

Debate is when people have a conversation, exchange views and agree or not. 

No it isn’t . It’s a view . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

17 minutes ago, Ked said:

For the reasons that you must be aware of.

You know all the jargon so you know all the arguments.Youve  made your mind up.

 

Correct . Hes at it . 

[Bobilius]

17 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/12/21/michael-foran-sex-gender-and-the-scotland-act/

 

Noticed you asking about how it would impact equalities legislation etc further up. Without the additional details about the government's advice I think the above is as good an overview as any. 

 

 

Thanks, very interesting. Well the parts I could understand anyway!

[i wish jj was my dad]

44 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

I don't know who you mean by 'they' RB. Nothing in any human endeavour that is worth a damn is as simple as black and white; them versus us. Why are people so desperate to polarise everything and then get so angry with the other side. As if it was about sides.

 

The legislation wasn't crafted by Nicola Sturgeon alone. There were years of lobbying to recognise trans rights and the right for any individual to make their own minds up rather than have it proscribed, occasionally wrongly, by a doctor. 

 

What it is all about is normalising the right for people to choose for themselves.

 

I really don't understand why that is so threatening to you that you have to refer to that as a mental illness.

That's a very balanced post. I struggle with some of the hysteria. Of course we want people to be safe but that should apply to everyone. I dont get the need to attack abd insult the entire trans community. 

We are just revisiting the abuse dished out towards the gay community up until 20-30 years ago in seemingly far more enlightened times. 

[BlueRiver]

7 minutes ago, Ked said:

Outlandish ?

 

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/amanda-jones-gender-recognition-bill-will-complicate-rather-than-clarify-the-law

 

 

 

Good article cheers for posting. 

[Bobilius]

2 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Holyrood isn't the final law of the land. This is well known regardless of who votes for what. I don't see the democratic rights being torn up. Certain ones never existed within the devolution framework. 

 

My local council can't do certain things either because they're also governed by a statutory framework. 

 

 

If it covers a devolved area we should have full autonomy and power. This is a devolved area, not a reserved area. Yet we’ve still got Westminster stepping in. No matter how you spin it, nobody is going to like the precedence this sets. On this occasion, it will suit some who are against the bill. However, there will be many people against this bill who will be thinking what if the next time it’s a bill I agree with…

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, Bobilius said:

Thanks, very interesting. Well the parts I could understand anyway!

 

It's a bit convoluted but in that respect if very much reflects the lack of clarity around a lot of these areas. Probably a sign of the recent development in sex and gender not being used interchangeably like once was. 

 

 

[Ked]

9 minutes ago, Bobilius said:

I’m not in favour of the bill actually. I think 16 is too young and 3 months too short. Although if honest I hadn’t given it much more detailed thought beyond those two headline parts before today and the Westminster intervention. I certainly hadn’t thought about it in relation to the EA. So now I’ve cleared that up for you why don’t you answer the question?

Because I can't be bothered .

And others do a better job of explaining.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

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

That's a very balanced post. I struggle with some of the hysteria. Of course we want people to be safe but that should apply to everyone. I dont get the need to attack abd insult the entire trans community. 

We are just revisiting the abuse dished out towards the gay community up until 20-30 years ago in seemingly far more enlightened times. 

No we aren’t . Stop using LGB in your arguments please . It’s rather offensive . Stop conflating sexual orientation with identity . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

12 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

My post right above yours was a blog post on the subject written by a Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University.

 

He seems to see fairly compelling justifications for a s.35 order. 

👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Ked said:

Because I can't be bothered .

And others do a better job of explaining.

 

😂😂

[Bobilius]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

Because I can't be bothered .

And others do a better job of explaining.

 

Nice backtrack after a swing and a miss 👍🏽

[henrysmithsgloves]

Funny, how, no matter who's in charge I never seem to be better off🤔

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Bobilius said:

Whatever the answer to that question is just now will be the same once (if) the GRR bill comes into law. Right now someone can go through the two year process and seek a GR certificate and be legally classed as a woman. They can then cross the border. Is the current right to go through that 2 year process impinging on the Equality Act?

THe Scottish Government knows its way to the Supreme Court and can get an answer to that. And the validity of the the s35 order. But faux outrage is the preferred route to, they hope, more votes.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Francis Albert

[Ked]

1 minute ago, Bobilius said:

Nice backtrack after a swing and a miss 👍🏽

If you say so

[BlueRiver]

Just now, Bobilius said:

If it covers a devolved area we should have full autonomy and power. This is a devolved area, not a reserved area. Yet we’ve still got Westminster stepping in. No matter how you spin it, nobody is going to like the precedence this sets. On this occasion, it will suit some who are against the bill. However, there will be many people against this bill who will be thinking what if the next time it’s a bill I agree with…

 

You'll sometimes tread into this areas of grey where a devolved matter impinges upon a reserved. I can only assume without trawling up some white paper that that was the intentions of s.35 when it was drafted. 

 

Optic wise, probably doesn't look too great but I still think it's a short term bounce towards yes if anything. 

 

It's been noted above that once in 25 years would indicate Westminster have a liberal approach towards how Scotland legislates on devolved matters. Can already spin it towards there being something seriously wrong with this bill for such a lever to be pulled. 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

It's a bit convoluted but in that respect if very much reflects the lack of clarity around a lot of these areas. Probably a sign of the recent development in sex and gender not being used interchangeably like once was. 

 

 

Yes the conflation of sex and gender deliberately caused “ confusion “ for some . It was a deliberate ploy . In fact even the concept of “gender “is a mish mash of harmful stereotypes about boys and girls , men and women . Again deliberate . 

[Bobilius]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

THe Scottish Government knows its way to the Supreme Court and can get an answer to that. But faux outrage is the preferred route to, they hope, more votes.

You’re avoiding your own question…

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

You'll sometimes tread into this areas of grey where a devolved matter impinges upon a reserved. I can only assume without trawling up some white paper that that was the intentions of s.35 when it was drafted. 

 

Optic wise, probably doesn't look too great but I still think it's a short term bounce towards yes if anything. 

 

It's been noted above that once in 25 years would indicate Westminster have a liberal approach towards how Scotland legislates on devolved matters. Can already spin it towards there being something seriously wrong with this bill for such a lever to be pulled. 

 

150 plus amendments were suggested , so I think it there were serious issues regarding it .

[Bobilius]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

If you say so

You jumped to a conclusion, you were wrong. Rather than admit you were being a smart arse you backed off and feigned boredom. 😉

[i wish jj was my dad]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

No we aren’t . Stop using LGB in your arguments please . It’s rather offensive . Stop conflating sexual orientation with identity . 

It was a general point and not aimed at you in particular.  Others have made similarly unpleasant comments and i have no idea what their sexual preferences are.

You have admitted you are a transphobe and seem very proud of it though so I am not sure why you are now offended because I find that distasteful. 

[BlueRiver]

3 minutes ago, henrysmithsgloves said:

Funny, how, no matter who's in charge I never seem to be better off🤔

 

Ain't that the truth. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Bobilius said:

Nice backtrack after a swing and a miss 👍🏽

Alex ??? 

[Bobilius]

3 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

You'll sometimes tread into this areas of grey where a devolved matter impinges upon a reserved. I can only assume without trawling up some white paper that that was the intentions of s.35 when it was drafted. 

 

Optic wise, probably doesn't look too great but I still think it's a short term bounce towards yes if anything. 

 

It's been noted above that once in 25 years would indicate Westminster have a liberal approach towards how Scotland legislates on devolved matters. Can already spin it towards there being something seriously wrong with this bill for such a lever to be pulled. 

 

“He’s only hit me once in 25 years. Sure it won’t happen again.”

[JudyJudyJudy]

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

admitted you are a transphobe and seem very proud of it though so I am not sure why you are now

What a load of bollocks ! When did I 

“ admit “ this ? 😂 

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

150 plus amendments were suggested , so I think it there were serious issues regarding it .

 

Yep. I'd need to check but I'm almost sure there were also some tabled directly at removing the conflict between the bill and the existing Equality Act. 

[Ked]

1 minute ago, Bobilius said:

You jumped to a conclusion, you were wrong. Rather than admit you were being a smart arse you backed off and feigned boredom. 😉

I've no idea what you are on about to be honest.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, Bobilius said:

“He’s only hit me once in 25 years. Sure it won’t happen again.”

Oh no not again ! 

Edited January 16, 2023 by JudyJudyJudy

[Bobilius]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

Yep. I'd need to check but I'm almost sure there were also some tabled directly at removing the conflict between the bill and the existing Equality Act. 

Wasn’t it just literally to add a line saying “this doesn’t conflict with the EA”?