Joanna Cherry (SNP) sacked

That we are even having these discussions shows how idiotic this legislation is. If it ever passes, dumb prosecutions will keep happening, lots of embarrassing press coverage and then get challenged in court.

Again, I ask why the SNP is wasting their time on this considering the state of the world.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]I hope Lucy fancies swimming then, and see how that is handled...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lucy-vallender-uk-transgender-muslim-woman-territorial-army_n_3868479?ri18n=true[/quote]
Can't tell if this article is real or a complete piss-take.

"Lucy Vallender finally feels "true to herself" since getting gender confirmation surgery and converting to Islam, saying that since the surgery three years ago and the conversion last September, "I felt happy and relieved at last the happiest I've ever felt in my life." She's been called the first transgender Muslim in the UK, but she said, "I bet there are more they are just frightened."

Vallender feels more comfortable in her own skin now more than ever before, but unfortunately some members of her new religious community don't feel the same way. Her local mosque in Swindon, Wiltshire, barred her from praying with the women and asked her many personal and judgmental questions, reports the Daily Mail.

"They asked me questions about my bra cup size, asked about my Adam's apple, about my period and asked to see my birth certificate," she said, and so returned home to pray there instead. "I hope people will change their attitudes and other people like me will realize they are free to just be themselves."

A spokesman for the mosque said, "Everybody is welcome, as long as they behave according to Islam," says the Daily Mail.

She converted to Islam last September, explaining that she had thought about it for a while and finally "did it because it is a nice religion -- so peaceful." Vallender continued, "I felt good and I had something to believe in."

She's found love as well as self-acceptance since her drastic life changes, and is now married to a Muslim man, Murad, whom she met on an online dating site. Though he did not know that she was trans at the time of their wedding, she commented, "he must have suspected it as he's seen my scars." She's only seen him twice since the wedding, but spoke warmly about him, commenting, "I love him, he's kind and soft spoken."

"Though he did not know that she was trans at the time of their wedding"

Woow

"She's only seen him twice since the wedding"

I really object to cross-dressing - a male sexual fetish - being legally protected from criticism. What would be next - wearing your rubber gear to work?

(Of course, it would simply be swapping one form of patriarchy for another, and many would probably decide it was beneath their dignity to do so, but I wonder what the legal position would be)

It's the exact same issue: how on earth can you police these boundaries? It's not realistic. What's to stop any male person identifying as a Muslim woman and entering that single sex swim

Because if you are Muslim, using this particular example of women only swimming sessions ( which certainly exist, and are valued, where I live), then you are not compelled to deny the teachings of your religion, and presumably that would mean being free to call a spade a spade, and not to have to falsely declare it a bucket?

I hope Lucy fancies swimming then, and see how that is handled...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lucy-vallender-uk-transgender-muslim-woman-territorial-army_n_3868479?ri18n=true

Thankful for the ones who've supported us though

Yes I was just thinking that. Non-practicing but devoutly religious woman popping up everywhere.

It's the exact same issue: how on earth can you police these boundaries? It's not realistic. What's to stop any male person identifying as a Muslim woman and entering that single sex swim?

Identifying as is a Thing.

I identify as a female with x faith. End of issue.

"This bill would neatly side step that need for proper examination. So muslim women - only swimming sessions, for example, could continue to be single sex because they come under religious freedom of expression."

Might have to become Muslim then, or ask them if I can join them, if they'll be allowed to remain having female only swimming sessions.

Out of interest, how complex is it to set up a "church". Say one that believes in the immutability of sex and the right of all its followers to bodily autonomy, privacy, and freedom of speech?

I'd come along to those sermons, Molten.

Bloody hell it is just so cynical. Can't face an almighty onslaught from the church so try to carve out an exemption while throwing science and logic adherents under the proverbial bus. Also, it is such a silly strategy as the church isn't going to be placated by the carve out.

As for this sentence "For those who object to Cherry’s approach to Gender Recognition Act reform, including young SNP activists, first attracted by its progressive image, who quit the party, the reshuffling was a happy start to LGBT history month." Brilliant - celebrating the demotion of a campaigning lesbian as a great start to LGBT history month is really quite something.

Ironic that the implication is that they know absolutely nothing whatsoever about history.

It's hard to wrap your head around this notion that those preaching "male people who identify as trans are an abomination" would be protected under this act.

But not women and girls who say, no, you are not an abomination. You have every right to identify as you wish. And even though we are not the same, you are free to say you are and because you are protected under the same law as we all are, when you say that, no one is allowed to deny you work, housing or medical care when you're sick. Which is right.

And because we are not the same, even though you would very much like to be, there are some, carefully limited, circumstances where we need to have our own provisions that exclude you. Because we have specific needs you do not have, and we have the right to assert these needs under the same law that protects you.

That is framed as hateful. Bigoted. How?

Out of interest, how complex is it to set up a "church". Say one that believes in the immutability of sex and the right of all its followers to bodily autonomy, privacy, and freedom of speech?

In the land of the Wee Free. You couldn’t make it up.

Am I getting this right? If I say gender is bollocks and sex is immutable because of science then I'm a bigot, but if I say the same because of my religious beliefs that's hunky dory?

From the wonderful

mbmpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/hate-crime-briefing-12.-the-inclusion-of-cross-dressing-in-the-hate-crime-bill.-.pdf

Then we have this in the bill

In the current Bill process, the only references to this issue in the Justice Committee’s Stage 1 report record the concerns raised by For Women Scotland; there is no other discussion of the inclusion of this group in the report, and no other witness appears to have been questioned about it or raised it in the oral evidence sessions.

1. Conclusion

I think he's saying that religious people are exempt, not that people can criticise them. So the Catholic Church can continue preaching that homosexuality is a sin (which of course is rubbish), but if any ordinary person says that they'd be hauled before the courts

It also to relates to any religious group being critical of transgenderism. A lot of people in ethnic communities/ minority religions would end up being arrested under the hate crime law, otherwise. He must know that, and understand it.

The issue of religious sensitivities has never really been addressed full on by the activists - because this would inevitably run up against the community realities of the other more 'favoured' minority groupings. It has, in fact been avoided.

This bill would neatly side step that need for proper examination. So muslim women - only swimming sessions, for example, could continue to be single sex because they come under religious freedom of expression.

I think he's saying that religious people are exempt, not that people can criticise them. So the Catholic Church can continue preaching that homosexuality is a sin (which of course is rubbish), but if any ordinary person says that they'd be hauled before the courts.

So would a perfectly reasonable defence to a charge of stating woman = adult human female be that it's a religious belief?

He is suggesting that people who belong to religious groups or minorities are pretty much exempt from the new hate crime laws, and can continue thinking, feeling and speaking as they always have; even to ridicule those, and that, which they determine morally reprehensible?

I'm not sure. From the previous tweet I think it might be a foe clause which allows ppl to criticise religions without it being a hate crime. One thing we have to consider in regulating speech is to distinguish between hating or being severely critical of the belief system of a religion, and hating the people who practice it. Former should be protected speech. Parallels with the things we discuss here.

Its a tacit agreement that women standing up for women get what they deserve from men.