JudyJudyJudy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Excellent analysis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i wish jj was my dad Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Quite obviously this is about attacking trans rights rather than concerns about this legislation suppressing free speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Elliott Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, i wish jj was my dad said: Quite obviously this is about attacking trans rights rather than concerns about this legislation suppressing free speech. What was it about someone posting a video attacking trans activists on the HCA thread that gave you that impression? 🙃 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Let’s be realistic here the act was mainly in response to trans issues ; be honest , there’s hardly going to be a deluge of emails to police Scotland from a 75 years old complaining of age “ hate “ . Get real . It’s perfectly legitimate to discus trans issues in relation to this act and in general . 😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i wish jj was my dad Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 10 minutes ago, Pete Elliott said: What was it about someone posting a video attacking trans activists on the HCA thread that gave you that impression? 🙃 Not just a wild guess. Pretty much every political debate has to get diverted down that route if that isn't the motivation in the first place. Some dedication to the cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hmfc1965 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said: As usual wee mousey has totally misinterpreted most of the discussions of the last few days . His analysis is laughable . police can still record a non hate crime against a person , even if no conviction , They just decided not to do it against Useless and JK . “ plod “ should not be making these decisions . Are you still at this? Honestly you must be trolling now. No matter what facts you're directed to you carry on with your bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hmfc1965 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 1 hour ago, jack D and coke said: I’m sure I read somewhere something like 50% of the prisoners in Glasgow jails are in for incidents of a sectarian nature. I mean that’s not an issue at all is it The domestic violence also goes completely off the scale after these “fantastic” games. I mean what’s wrong with calling people fenian/orange *******s for a laugh for 90 mins then going home and knocking **** out your Mrs?? Best derby in the world, we should all be proud of it. It also seems very unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Hmfc1965 said: It also seems very unlikely. What does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hmfc1965 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, jack D and coke said: What does? That 50% of prisoners in Glasgow are in for sectarian offences. In a country that has a horrific drug problem . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said: Are you still at this? Honestly you must be trolling now. No matter what facts you're directed to you carry on with your bullshit. Remember what the mod said earlier please . Treat other posters with respect and courtesy . Abuse is not permitted . Edited April 3 by JudyJudyJudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: Remember what the mod said earlier please . Treat other posters with respect . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Tazio said: Nighty night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Hmfc1965 said: That 50% of prisoners in Glasgow are in for sectarian offences. In a country that has a horrific drug problem . The drug problem probably most of the rest of the prison population. I’m not sure where I read it so that’s fine you doubt me. Scotland has drug problems let’s not kid ourselves aye. I can’t say 100% im right on this but I’ll try find the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 10 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said: That 50% of prisoners in Glasgow are in for sectarian offences. In a country that has a horrific drug problem . The percentage is quite high anyway. The whole of this country thinks it’s fine to have a sectarian roadshow (depending on your colours) around the country every week then get all arsey about this law Btw I was the worlds worst years ago. The people losing their shit here…I can easily categorise them… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrysmithsgloves Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 9 hours ago, BlueRiver said: @Ulysses not sure how arsed you are overall about human rights law ins and outs but that blog is a very good one to bookmark imo. Bookmarked, and thanks for the tip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) By the way, while all of this debate has been going on, existing hate crime charge records show that the most commonly reported hate crime category relates to race. The second most common, and the fastest growing category, is sexual orientation. Race and sexual orientation between them accounted for about 88% of all charges. The third highest category is disability (10%), and fourth highest is religion, accounting for around 12%. Fifth and last is transgender identity, which accounted for 55 charges out of a total of 5,738 (1%). All of these are where someone was charged with an offence, and there was an aggravating factor that allowed the offence to be categorised as a hate crime. Most of the offences were under one piece of legislation, section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, 2010 (copied below). I'd imagine a lot of convictions generally fall under this section. Hate Crime in Scotland 2022-23 | COPFS Edited April 4 by Ulysses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 By the way, the categories will add up to more than the total, because where there are two aggravating factors (e.g. race and sexual orientation) the charge is counted under each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 10 hours ago, Pete Elliott said: To be fair, the guidance document does contradict Police Scotland’s statement a bit. It’s not helped by a grammatical error but it does seem to instruct the data processor to record the name of the perpetrator where it is a non-crime hate incident. In the case of Murdo Fraser, that would mean his name is recorded but the PS statement clearly said it wasn’t. Confusing! Sorry, but I'm still trying to find that guidance document. I must have missed it if it was posted on the thread. Any chance you could point me in the right direction? I'm looking for the original source, rather than someone's copy or screenshot of it, if at all possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 6 hours ago, Hmfc1965 said: Are you still at this? Honestly you must be trolling now. No matter what facts you're directed to you carry on with your bullshit. It's what is commonly referred to as 'modus operandi' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 12 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said: Just pointing out in the context of the unseemly rush to lap up the support from the right wing. The very right wing that would remove their rights and protections to deliver their electoral survival Well that's just wrong but you probably are aware of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 10 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said: Well that's just wrong but you probably are aware of that. How serendipitous. From yesterday. The actual Prime Minister saying that he'll leave the ECHR to send 'illegal' immigrants to Rwanda. You know those good old Tories, openly stating they'll remove my ECHR rights just to deliver their electoral pledges or as I put it do anything to stay in power. You're welcome 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Elliott Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 5 hours ago, Ulysses said: Sorry, but I'm still trying to find that guidance document. I must have missed it if it was posted on the thread. Any chance you could point me in the right direction? I'm looking for the original source, rather than someone's copy or screenshot of it, if at all possible. Here’s the link to the full document: https://www.scotland.police.uk/spa-media/1igmlx53/22-1191-attachment-01.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Elliott Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 The bit that doesn’t add up for me is this claim by freespeechunion.org: The police guidance suggests that while the name of the accused will appear in the record, the record itself will only be saved against the accuser’s name. The statement from the Police is pretty clear on that too. Therefore what are freespeechunion basing this claim that it could cost you a job on? Information about non-crime incidents such as domestics and alleged assaults are already stored on the police VPD system and do not show up as part of a Disclosure/PVG check. Hopefully the Murdo Fraser case goes to court and provides clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gundermann Posted April 4 Author Share Posted April 4 12 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said: Here's a novel thought. Keep your unsavoury opinions to yourself and 'plod' will probably not 'have to make any decision' Perhaps log off for a while. This topic appears to be consuming you and with respect you don't appear to have the processing power to retain any kind of balance. This. Judy's last reply didn't engage with me objecting to his post but was incredulous that I'd reappeared after some hours away... Get a life Judy ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boag1874 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 9 minutes ago, Pete Elliott said: The bit that doesn’t add up for me is this claim by freespeechunion.org: The police guidance suggests that while the name of the accused will appear in the record, the record itself will only be saved against the accuser’s name. The statement from the Police is pretty clear on that too. Therefore what are freespeechunion basing this claim that it could cost you a job on? Information about non-crime incidents such as domestics and alleged assaults are already stored on the police VPD system and do not show up as part of a Disclosure/PVG check. Hopefully the Murdo Fraser case goes to court and provides clarity. I'd hazard a guess that freespeechunion might not be the most balanced source of information. Third party reporting centres have also existed for years without any real controversy. If you report something to the police they have to log it, otherwise they're not doing their job properly. If no crime has been committed then the accused will not have it go against them. It's sad that the term "free speech" has been weaponised and is now the go-to defence for people who want to project hate onto others, either in person or online, without facing consequences for their actions. The constant 24/7 social media culture war has utterly rotted the minds of so many people in our society on both sides of the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 6 minutes ago, boag1874 said: I'd hazard a guess that freespeechunion might not be the most balanced source of information. Third party reporting centres have also existed for years without any real controversy. If you report something to the police they have to log it, otherwise they're not doing their job properly. If no crime has been committed then the accused will not have it go against them. It's sad that the term "free speech" has been weaponised and is now the go-to defence for people who want to project hate onto others, either in person or online, without facing consequences for their actions. The constant 24/7 social media culture war has utterly rotted the minds of so many people in our society on both sides of the debate. If only everyone could be decent then we could all speak. Unfortunately both sides are guilty of taking offence and trying to silence discourse . Real debate is stifled actual discussion is branded hateful because people don’t want to listen to what they don’t agree with . People need to listen , think and respect and challenge , not cry and foam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 7 hours ago, Ulysses said: By the way, while all of this debate has been going on, existing hate crime charge records show that the most commonly reported hate crime category relates to race. The second most common, and the fastest growing category, is sexual orientation. Race and sexual orientation between them accounted for about 88% of all charges. The third highest category is disability (10%), and fourth highest is religion, accounting for around 12%. Fifth and last is transgender identity, which accounted for 55 charges out of a total of 5,738 (1%). All of these are where someone was charged with an offence, and there was an aggravating factor that allowed the offence to be categorised as a hate crime. Most of the offences were under one piece of legislation, section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, 2010 (copied below). I'd imagine a lot of convictions generally fall under this section. Hate Crime in Scotland 2022-23 | COPFS Well well well . I would have thought a certain group would be much higher up on this list , since it’s apparently rife against them ? 1% just wow and yes I am aware that the stats are alsu reflective of the population size of each group but it’s still incredibly low . Great publicity machine though . Gotta give some credit . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 49 minutes ago, Gundermann said: This. Judy's last reply didn't engage with me objecting to his post but was incredulous that I'd reappeared after some hours away... Get a life Judy ffs. Aye right 😮 I’ll keep my yaks on you 👀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 21 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: If only everyone could be decent then we could all speak. Unfortunately both sides are guilty of taking offence and trying to silence discourse . Real debate is stifled actual discussion is branded hateful because people don’t want to listen to what they don’t agree with . People need to listen , think and respect and challenge , not cry and foam I agree to an extend but it’s certainly one side in the trans debate who will not ever ever debate . They believe there is no debate to be had so it is where it is . Other groups facing hate have no issues debating or taking . It’s kinda the adult thing to do . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said: Well that's just wrong but you probably are aware of that. Oh he’s obsessed with the Toaries they live rent free in his head . We can all get some respite once they get booted out but only respite as he needs to turn his wrath to some party , so Labour it is . He needs to let off steam somehow I suppose . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB52 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 58 minutes ago, Gundermann said: This. Judy's last reply didn't engage with me objecting to his post but was incredulous that I'd reappeared after some hours away... Get a life Judy ffs. I'm afraid this is his life. Posting on here his hatred for trans people gives him some weird pleasure. Honestly, put him on ignore, it makes this place so much better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: I agree to an extend but it’s certainly one side in the trans debate who will not ever ever debate . They believe there is no debate to be had so it is where it is . Other groups facing hate have no issues debating or taking . It’s kinda the adult thing to do . A movement needs goodwill and the public on its side. Hearts and minds. bring the people with you by discussion and persuasion. Its become a microcosm of our politics endless screaming and factless hyperbole. suicide/deaths/holocaust/cancelling/violent protest and leverage a sad reflection on people who have all the information available at the tips of their fingers but lack the ability to interpret it and merely guided by factions shouting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 10 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: I agree to an extend but it’s certainly one side in the trans debate who will not ever ever debate . They believe there is no debate to be had so it is where it is . Other groups facing hate have no issues debating or taking . It’s kinda the adult thing to do . Hang on , you come out with this obtuse post after literally refusing to view scientific evidence that is contrary to your opinion , and resorting to shite gifs and wee insults like “ do one “ ect ? You are as completely devoid of self awareness as you are the ability to debate like like an adult Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: A movement needs goodwill and the public on its side. Hearts and minds. bring the people with you by discussion and persuasion. Its become a microcosm of our politics endless screaming and factless hyperbole. suicide/deaths/holocaust/cancelling/violent protest and leverage a sad reflection on people who have all the information available at the tips of their fingers but lack the ability to interpret it and merely guided by factions shouting. The LGB movement of the 70s 80s and 90s was an inspiring movement and saught to debate and win over people with a respectful approach . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 7 hours ago, Ulysses said: By the way, while all of this debate has been going on, existing hate crime charge records show that the most commonly reported hate crime category relates to race. The second most common, and the fastest growing category, is sexual orientation. Race and sexual orientation between them accounted for about 88% of all charges. The third highest category is disability (10%), and fourth highest is religion, accounting for around 12%. Fifth and last is transgender identity, which accounted for 55 charges out of a total of 5,738 (1%). All of these are where someone was charged with an offence, and there was an aggravating factor that allowed the offence to be categorised as a hate crime. Most of the offences were under one piece of legislation, section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, 2010 (copied below). I'd imagine a lot of convictions generally fall under this section. Hate Crime in Scotland 2022-23 | COPFS Reading those figures , I wonder how proportionate they are to the % of the population that each group makes up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, Sooks said: Hang on , you come out with this obtuse post after literally refusing to view scientific evidence that is contrary to your opinion , and resorting to shite gifs and wee insults like “ do one “ ect ? You are as completely devoid of self awareness as you are the ability to debate like like an adult But you are not wanting to “ debate “ as you have been quite clear yesterday , on multiple occasions your views about sex and gender . You have no interest regarding biology and gender critical beliefs . Zero interest . So it’s a waste of time debating with you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said: Ah good. I woke up this morning a little worried that the debate might have moved on. Don’t worry Jim it’s just a brief appearance from me as rather busy today . I had a spare day yesterday so was rather bored . 😎 Edited April 4 by JudyJudyJudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said: But you are not wanting to “ debate “ as you have been quite clear yesterday , on multiple occasions your views about sex and gender . You have no interest regarding biology and gender critical beliefs . Zero interest . So it’s a waste of time debating with you . I was wanting to debate , I even provided reliable scientific evidence to back up my stance . You just started flapping about and took great joy in not actually digesting it . As I said before wilful ignorance . You do not debate things , you post shan gifs and insult people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Elliott Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, boag1874 said: I'd hazard a guess that freespeechunion might not be the most balanced source of information. Third party reporting centres have also existed for years without any real controversy. If you report something to the police they have to log it, otherwise they're not doing their job properly. If no crime has been committed then the accused will not have it go against them. It's sad that the term "free speech" has been weaponised and is now the go-to defence for people who want to project hate onto others, either in person or online, without facing consequences for their actions. The constant 24/7 social media culture war has utterly rotted the minds of so many people in our society on both sides of the debate. 53 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: If only everyone could be decent then we could all speak. Unfortunately both sides are guilty of taking offence and trying to silence discourse . Real debate is stifled actual discussion is branded hateful because people don’t want to listen to what they don’t agree with . People need to listen , think and respect and challenge , not cry and foam 21 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: A movement needs goodwill and the public on its side. Hearts and minds. bring the people with you by discussion and persuasion. Its become a microcosm of our politics endless screaming and factless hyperbole. suicide/deaths/holocaust/cancelling/violent protest and leverage a sad reflection on people who have all the information available at the tips of their fingers but lack the ability to interpret it and merely guided by factions shouting. Great posts. What a world we live in. 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 9 minutes ago, Sooks said: I was wanting to debate , I even provided reliable scientific evidence to back up my stance . You just started flapping about and took great joy in not actually digesting it . As I said before wilful ignorance . You do not debate things , you post shan gifs and insult people It wasnt debate, you were applying genetics and biology to an ideology and mistakenly linking the two. A large scale study of >2700 kids that followed them for years has just shown that of the kids with gender discomfort / incongruence if left alone and NOT treated 88% of girls and 98% of boys once they had passed through puberty stopped having issues and settled into their sex. This matches earlier research on the matter that if watchful waiting is done it nearly always resolved. Compare that to the studies of children commenced on affirmative health care and puberty blockers- nearly all go on to cross sex hormones. That appears to show that commencing treatment prevents resolution of the disorder and turns it into a life long condition. there are, of course, a tiny tiny number of people who do not resolve, but those numbers are ( and always were) infinitesimally low compared to what is currently being seen. This is why many countries are banning the use of chemotherapy in children ( apart from the countries where loads of money is to be made from it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Elliott Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 8 hours ago, Ulysses said: By the way, while all of this debate has been going on, existing hate crime charge records show that the most commonly reported hate crime category relates to race. The second most common, and the fastest growing category, is sexual orientation. Race and sexual orientation between them accounted for about 88% of all charges. The third highest category is disability (10%), and fourth highest is religion, accounting for around 12%. Fifth and last is transgender identity, which accounted for 55 charges out of a total of 5,738 (1%). All of these are where someone was charged with an offence, and there was an aggravating factor that allowed the offence to be categorised as a hate crime. Most of the offences were under one piece of legislation, section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, 2010 (copied below). I'd imagine a lot of convictions generally fall under this section. Hate Crime in Scotland 2022-23 | COPFS Interesting statistics and does somewhat debunk the idea that hate crime and the development of the HCA is mostly to do with trans issues. As you say these stats relate to where someone has been charged with an offence, usually a s38. What I think the HCA will target is those who would previously have been untouchable. The ones who rile up (or stir up to use the terminology of the HCA) the hatred and incite others to act. The puppet masters behind the hard of thinking puppets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 11 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: It wasnt debate, you were applying genetics and biology to an ideology and mistakenly linking the two. A large scale study of >2700 kids that followed them for years has just shown that of the kids with gender discomfort / incongruence if left alone and NOT treated 88% of girls and 98% of boys once they had passed through puberty stopped having issues and settled into their sex. This matches earlier research on the matter that if watchful waiting is done it nearly always resolved. Compare that to the studies of children commenced on affirmative health care and puberty blockers- nearly all go on to cross sex hormones. That appears to show that commencing treatment prevents resolution of the disorder and turns it into a life long condition. there are, of course, a tiny tiny number of people who do not resolve, but those numbers are ( and always were) infinitesimally low compared to what is currently being seen. This is why many countries are banning the use of chemotherapy in children ( apart from the countries where loads of money is to be made from it) It absolutely was an attempt to debate . So far nobody , including yourself , has actually managed to successfully dispute any of the contents of what I provided . I made no mistake , I listened to and digested the lecture , and I followed it up by doing a bit of further reading myself , in order to make sure I was understanding it properly . I will happily have a look at the study you reference in this post . Please provide a link so I can do it a bit later when I have a bit of time The main thing I was disputing by providing the link was that females can not have a penis Edited April 4 by Sooks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 2 minutes ago, Sooks said: It absolutely was an attempt to debate . So far nobody , including yourself , has actually managed to successfully dispute any of the contents of what I provided . I made no mistake , I listened to and digested the lecture , and I followed it up by doing a bit of further reading myself , in order to make sure I was understanding it properly . I will happily have a look at the study you reference in this post . Please provide a link so I can do it a bit later when I have a bit of time The main thing I was disputing by providing the link was that females can not have a penis females can not have a penis they can have something that resembles a penis- an enlarged clitoris with / without a urethral opening . or fused labia that resemble a scrotum but that is not a penis and those are biological disorders of a defined and classifiable sort they are nothing to do with gender- gender is a social construct without limit or definition sex is biological with a few rare disorders when that biology goes awry these can be identified and tested for ( real tests, I mean) Dylan Mulvaney is not a woman with a penis due to DSD. None of this gender issue has anything to do with biology. that does not mean we should not treat them with dignity and respect, but trying to lever biology into the debate is merely trying to muddy the waters and does no service to people with genuine genital abnormalities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Elliott Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 The other thing that is understandably causing some confusion here is why did Murdo Fraser’s comments warrant a NCHI record but JK Rowling’s didn’t? I’m not saying either should or shouldn’t. From what I can see Fraser’s comments don’t appear any more harmful than Rowling’s. If anything you’d expect it to possibly be the other way round given Rowling mentions specific individuals and has a much larger following. Until confusion like this is clarified then people like Joanna Cherry will continue to spin it as “policing on the hoof”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, Pete Elliott said: The other thing that is understandably causing some confusion here is why did Murdo Fraser’s comments warrant a NCHI record but JK Rowling’s didn’t? I’m not saying either should or shouldn’t. From what I can see Fraser’s comments don’t appear any more harmful than Rowling’s. If anything you’d expect it to possibly be the other way round given Rowling mentions specific individuals and has a much larger following. Until confusion like this is clarified then people like Joanna Cherry will continue to spin it as “policing on the hoof”. Ive spoke to a lot of police officers- the guidance is horrific and they dont know what to do! depends on the investigating officer. that is why the legislation is poor- its up for the police to interpret ( as per Siobhan Brown) and not to merely apply. That seems a bit muddled to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 5 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: females can not have a penis they can have something that resembles a penis- an enlarged clitoris with / without a urethral opening . or fused labia that resemble a scrotum but that is not a penis and those are biological disorders of a defined and classifiable sort they are nothing to do with gender- gender is a social construct without limit or definition sex is biological with a few rare disorders when that biology goes awry these can be identified and tested for ( real tests, I mean) Dylan Mulvaney is not a woman with a penis due to DSD. None of this gender issue has anything to do with biology. that does not mean we should not treat them with dignity and respect, but trying to lever biology into the debate is merely trying to muddy the waters and does no service to people with genuine genital abnormalities So you would dispute her work , despite her being an expert in the field ? Did you watch the link out of interest? It really does help with discussing things like this , and I mean that in the nicest possible way . I will absolutely be reading up on the contents of your post before replying to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, Sooks said: So you would dispute her work , despite her being an expert in the field ? Did you watch the link out of interest? It really does help with discussing things like this , and I mean that in the nicest possible way . I will absolutely be reading up on the contents of your post before replying to it Right, in simple terms. a female with XX chromosome and no disorder of sexual development can ever have a penis. And in no way whatsoever is any of that relevent to gender anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 8 hours ago, Ulysses said: By the way, while all of this debate has been going on, existing hate crime charge records show that the most commonly reported hate crime category relates to race. The second most common, and the fastest growing category, is sexual orientation. Race and sexual orientation between them accounted for about 88% of all charges. The third highest category is disability (10%), and fourth highest is religion, accounting for around 12%. Fifth and last is transgender identity, which accounted for 55 charges out of a total of 5,738 (1%). All of these are where someone was charged with an offence, and there was an aggravating factor that allowed the offence to be categorised as a hate crime. Most of the offences were under one piece of legislation, section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, 2010 (copied below). I'd imagine a lot of convictions generally fall under this section. Hate Crime in Scotland 2022-23 | COPFS Against their percentage shares of the population I find that quite interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Just now, doctor jambo said: Right, in simple terms. a female with XX chromosome and no disorder of sexual development can ever have a penis. And in no way whatsoever is any of that relevent to gender anyway Did you watch it ? I would enjoy discussing it , but so far I think nobody has actually bothered their arse and it makes discussing the finer details of it rather difficult Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.7d2eb04fc6e1ac22a4f023ea64cda41e.jpg)
5,088
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.