Rosie Duffield thank you

Yes it will be an offence to make a fraudulent declaration. However, as there is no definition of what it is to live as a woman in the bill , then how on earth can you say that someone is not complying with their declaration? As the bill stands the " penalty" for false declarations is impossible to impose as it will be impossible to prove there has been fraud.

So why have you quoted a Tory document to back up your argument?

This would be hilarious if it weren't so bloody awful. Come on then @CatherinaJTV - how do you prove someone is 'wrongly self-ID-ing'?

In any case - how are we to tell the difference? Wait and see if they assault someone?

Yeah, that's it, isn't it? It's the only way we can tell.

It seems prevention isn't better than cure after all

@CatherinaJTV that document doesn't explain how it could be proved that someone had made a false declaration. If the person insists that they are genuinely transgender and their declaration was true, how could anyone prove otherwise?

It's self-ID we're talking about here, not something which can be proved in a court of law.

IANAL, and this is not much elaborated on here in section 14

The legislation talks about somebody knowingly making a false declaration, but there is no explanation of what that means. Please explain how this would work in practice if gender is a completely subjective concept. What is false and what is true?

Okay. So any male who says he is a woman is by definition not a bad person. It's impossible for a male to 'wrongly' self ID because that would be illegal so nobody would ever do it. Fab.

It's hard to say how much I admire Rosie Duffield for weathering the inevitable tirade of abuse and attack that will follow stating simple, basic truths that everybody, deep down, knows are correct. It is not possible to change sex, and males as a class will always present a risk for women, no matter how they say they 'identify'.

It is the most monumentally absurd position that we have somehow found ourselves in. Absurd and increasingly dangerous.

I'm scunnered that we don't have more politicians willing to stand up to this ridiculous ideology and state that gravity exists and the sky is blue.

Stonewall et al would also support a policy of gendering all men convicted of violent and abusive crimes against women as male.

www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-consultation-scottish-government/pages/11/

That's not what GRA reform is about and it would be illegal to falsely claim you are trans to access women's spaces, as alleged to commit further crimes.

If this were true it would suggest that somebody guilty of a sex crime against women would automatically be exempt from being treated as a woman by the prison service, and it would be acknowledged by all that the suspect in the wi spa case was a man. However that clearly isn’t the case.

Can’t believe you’d quote a 2015 paper from the Government Equalities Office written by and under a Tory government, Catherina

I thought it was utterly unethical to work with Tories and it makes women complicit?

I don’t believe you did answer my question. I haven’t seen it. Never mind, I’m a very patient person, so I don’t mind at all posting it again you can c&p your previous answer if you like.

You scolded women for inviting Tory MSPs to engage with them at the protest last week. Tory MPs led the proposed reform of the GRA in England and Wales in 2018, and evidence gathering is still ongoing, headed by Tories. Quite a number of Tory MPs are very supportive to trans people.

Do you oppose this work being done by Tories? May we scold you? If not, why not?

Posted before I meant to. Sexual predators will take advantage of self ID. It is happening.

As the writer chooses to ignore this very real threat to women, her argument holds little weight.

[quote CatherinaJTV]this is a good dissection of the Duffield thread, I find.

eloisefreya.wordpress.com/2021/09/11/an-open-letter-to-rosie-duffield/[/quote]
As the writer has deliberately misused this quote from Duffield - 'I do not accept self-ID as a passport for male-bodied biological men to enter protected spaces for biological women' as an attack on transgender people. Sexual predators

Thank you once again to Rosie Duffield, a woman defending women in the face of an ideology that is akin to forcing everyone to believe that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat and Jerusalem is at the centre......
Why do we have to go round and round explaining facts to people who want to deny science?....

the spectre raised here and elsewhere is the man who frivolously claims to be a (trans) woman to get access to women's spaces. That's not what GRA reform is about and it would be illegal to falsely claim you are trans to access women's spaces, as alleged to commit further crimes.

How could it be proved that someone has made a false claim to be transgender?

If self-ID is based on someone's subjective feelings about 'their gender', how could a claim they made about this subjective feeling be proven to be false? Surely you would have to be able to read their mind in order to discover this.

Please explain how we can discover whether someone has made a false claim @CatherinaJTV.

the spectre raised here and elsewhere is the man who frivolously claims to be a (trans) woman to get access to women's spaces. That's not what GRA reform is about and it would be illegal to falsely claim you are trans to access women's spaces, as alleged to commit further crimes.

No - the question of whether or not any individual male-bodied person accessing women's spaces genuinely believes they're a woman or not isn't the point. The point is that in many cases women may be just as uncomfortable sharing formerly single sex spaces with a 'genuine' transwoman as with a man claiming to be one. In any case - how are we to tell the difference? Wait and see if they assault someone?

Again, please explain how you would discern that somebody had illegally self ID’d.

this is a good dissection of the Duffield thread, I find.

eloisefreya.wordpress.com/2021/09/11/an-open-letter-to-rosie-duffield/

[quote GrabbingTheWorldByTheLapels]@CatherinaJTV it is a thing though isn’t it?
You are not arguing in good faith here. You assert you were misgendered presumably until you hit puberty or the effects of puberty became more recognisable.

And once through puberty It’s not just about the boobs though, is it? For men who gone through puberty the differences are recognisable instantly in their height, build, breadth of shoulders, pelvis, shape of jaw, voice and so many other physical traits that differentiate them from a natal woman irrespective of how they choose to present.

As the fabulous Girls Aloud once sang ‘you can’t mistake (my) biology! The way that (we) talk/The way that (we) walk/ its there in (our) thoughts..”

It is a evolutionary trait - we do recognise the opposite sex. We’re biologically primed to do so.[/quote]
My class mate went through puberty and was still read as a man. That whole "biologically primed" thing isn't really (a thing, that is).

have you read the draft bill?

Please answer the question.

On what grounds would somebody be judged to have wrongly self ID’d if identity is a subjective concept.

@catherinajtv the document you have linked is a 'good practice' document written by a Government department and a special interest lobby group who state various things but do not actually link them to the specific relevant legislation.

The specific mention of single sex spaces says -

'Separate and single sex services

You may only treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently regarding access to services reserved for their self-identified gender if you can demonstrate that the way you have approached a situation is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ and so is objectively justifiable.You need to be able to
show that there is no less discriminatory way to achieve the aim.

Unlawful discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender
reassignment is not acceptable and consequently the exception has to be used in exceptional circumstances. Decisions made cannot be based on personal prejudice but on evidence of detriment to others, and the service provider will need to show that a less discriminatory way to achieve the objective was not available. '

There is detriment to others (women, who are also a protected characteristic) so single sex toilets are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There is various evidence that mixed sex or 'gender neutral' toilets are detrimental to women. The English Government even agrees - <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210515234830/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/15/exclusive-return-ladies-gents-lavatories-ministers-tell-architects/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210515234830/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/15/exclusive-return-ladies-gents-lavatories-ministers-tell-architects/

I also suspect that the group who have 'advised' the Government are very much in the line of Stonewall's 'representing the law as they want it to be, not as it is' (as pointed out by an independent review of the University of Essex).

@CatherinaJTV it is a thing though isn’t it?
You are not arguing in good faith here. You assert you were misgendered presumably until you hit puberty or the effects of puberty became more recognisable.

And once through puberty It’s not just about the boobs though, is it? For men who gone through puberty the differences are recognisable instantly in their height, build, breadth of shoulders, pelvis, shape of jaw, voice and so many other physical traits that differentiate them from a natal woman irrespective of how they choose to present.

As the fabulous Girls Aloud once sang ‘you can’t mistake (my) biology! The way that (we) talk/The way that (we) walk/ its there in (our) thoughts..”

It is a evolutionary trait - we do recognise the opposite sex. We’re biologically primed to do so.