To be depressed and angry that sex offenders will be able to “change gender”

[Ramblingnamechanger]

Following last nights vote by MSPs to reject an amendment to forbid sex offenders from accessing easier access to a GRC, it seems that womens rights to privacy and decency , same sex care , etc is not important. They are still to vote on the whole bill but until the legalities are clearer, surely this cannot be acceptable?

I suppose I was asking why some peoples feelings trump others.

Have the MSPs actually ever spoken to a woman or representatives from orgs like Women’s Aid?

They have spoken to the top layer of Women's Aid, which is dependent on ScotGov for funding, and obviously tells them what they want to hear.

They have refused to meet front line women's services or grass roots women's organisations. The whole consultation was a stitch up.

In this case, refusing to write F (for female) in the "sex of perpetrator" box in the individual crime record is torture. If a man is convicted of forcing his penis into a woman, child, or man, recording him as male is the same as torturing the convicted rapist. Apparently.

So what is it called when you force your penis into someone else's body? That's got to be worse than bureaucratic records you never even see. It's not like we're going to wallpaper his cell with print copies of the records, is it?

O I seethe bat signal has gone out !

There is a pattern to whose feelings trump whose.

The people who are prioritised may or may not identify as of the "woman gender", but they are always of the male sex.

Yes of course that’s what it is….how come I never saw that before?!

My thoughts exactly. 11% of mnetters think to think it's fine for convicted sex offenders to get a new identity without ANY safeguards, yeah right.

Quite. Someone once reported an MNer in AIBU for referring to Ian Huntley as he and him, after it was reported that Huntley identified as trans. It has since been reported that he doesn't.

Huntley murdered two 10 year old girls. What kind of MNer would centre his feelings like that?

Yes. 16 is so young. What does 16 know of life? Even18? But 16 is a youth, moving out of childhood, not an adult. At the time of the row about the suffragette colours when Joanna Cherry appeared in Parliament all decked out in glorious defiance, I happened across a clip- it must have been the Parliament channel - of what appeared to be predominantly women, solid, middle-aged, sensible looking Edinburghers having an earnest discussion about the vital issue of whether these youngsters should require three months or six months in their new appearance and I couldn't help but be shocked at the sight and ask myself 'Is this what we got the vote for? How has it come to this? Seriously, how can they not see the startling triviality and irrelevance, compared with the fundamental nature and implications of the policy that they want to implement? Are they out of their minds?'

Talking of torture and convicted rapists, doesn't it seem like upholding male people's "human rights" amounts to psychological torture of some other people?

extract

FDJ, Former female offender, England

“Being in prison with male prisoners, you always feel on edge. You know something could happen at any time. We know they are not women. They are physically threatening and aggressive. I was sexually assaulted and I am not the only woman who has been. They haven’t had surgery and they expose themselves. One of them had been told he couldn’t shower at the same time as us women. He made a formal complaint and said this was a breach of his human rights. So now he is allowed to shower with us. And because he now has that right, the other males have that right too. There’s only a shower curtain between us. He moves the curtain so we can all see his penis when he is washing himself or shaving his legs. This is disgusting and I think it is disgusting that the prison allows this.

We can’t complain about anything. They are very well protected and it feels like our rights as women just don’t count. We have to call them ‘she’ and ‘her’ and have to use their female names. If we don’t, we are punished and lose our enhanced prisoner or D-Category status. It is horrible to do that to women.

I am very upset that I lost my legal case. I can’t understand how anyone can say that imprisoning males alongside women is the right thing to do. The prisoner who attacked me was convicted of the most serious sexual offences against girls and still has his penis. How can the government say that putting him in prison with women is the right thing to do? It’s not. I am out of prison now. But I think about all the other women still in prison who have to live with these males. This is dangerous, disgusting and wrong.”

From: women in prison speak out

Every single woman in there is someone's daughter.

Please don't apologise for asking questions.

The Scottish proposals will affect the whole UK, similar legislation is being considered in the other UK nations, and has already been enacted in some other countries. It's really important that people understand the implications.

It's people - primarily politicians and senior levels of the public sector - not asking* *questions that has got us into this mess.

*Are they out of their minds?

I think a more pertinent question is, "were they ever in them"?

I've just been watching Maggie Chapman (Scottish Greens) making a statement that this bill does not go far enough.

She would like legal recognition for non-binary people, although no one yet has managed to define exactly what this means and whether it means that non binary people should have access to which ever changing rooms, sports teams etc they want on any given day.

She thinks requiring someone to live as their acquired gender for any period of time before getting a GRC is unreasonable and should be removed from the bill. No one has defined what living as your acquired gender actually means and given the number of bearded lesbians it doesn't look like it means anything other than what you want it to mean. That's rather convenient.

She also thinks there should be a GRC process for minors because children as young as 6 or 7 already know their gender identity. She casually forgets to mention the evidence that most gender confused/questioning children will resolve any emotional/psychological conflict between the reality of their sexed body and their self perception by the time they reach adulthood and many find they are simply gay or lesbian. She somehow manages to use the word evidence in her little speech proving once again that words have no meaning to gender authoritarians.

When the CEO of a rape crisis centre in one of your major cities has a penis, no GRC but goes by female pronouns one wonders which barriers are left to remove?

quote
A GRC changes a person’s sex ‘for all purposes’ but there remains an exception for hereditary peerages. As far as I’m aware this bill keeps thaT exception in place.

But MSPs voted against an exception for rapists.

Let that sink in.
twitter

Wow the Scots are keeping the primogeniture clause. Prioritising mens right to inherit titles over womens safety.

Despite the absolute shower at Westminster I feel rather fortunate that the head of government isn't a feminist to his fingertip.

Just catching up with the other amendments which have been rejected. The Scottish Government have said NO to:

1. Collecting data on detransitioners. - No need to find out if your affirmation only approach to gender identity care actually works, let's just keep funding the pharmaceutical industry.

1. Monitoring the impact of the bill on safety in sport. - Better to gather no data at all than gather data which proves that mixed sex sports are dangerous for women, as many people have already explained to the SG.

1. Monitoring the impact of the bill on provisioning of gender identity healthcare. - Let's just spend money on treatments without finding out what works and what doesn't

1. Monitoring the impact of the bill on women who may require a female HCP's for religious reasons. - Inclusion for me but not for thee.

Either the SG is too stupid or reckless to be trusted with the responsibility of making these decisions or they are so committed to bringing in a predators charter they are blinkered to the enormity of the unintended consequences.

For anyone who is new to this, and finds the conversation a bit opaque:

Primogeniture, as you will know, means that the firstborn son inherits his family lands and seat in the house of Lords, no matter how many older sisters he has. Primogeniture is why we have had very few queens in our nation's history! The Gender Recognition Act 2004 contains a specific exception that addresses what would happen if the older female child of an aristocrat identifies as trans, and it specifies that she is still treated as female for the purposes of inheritance law.

She cannot take the younger son's expected inheritance, because that would be taking advantages away from male people. But he, should he identify as trans, can take stuff away from female people

This whole genderology disaster is grounded in trans activists' complete and total certainty that society can be divided into two groups: 1, the group whose wishes and needs matter, and 2, the group whose wishes and needs don't matter. These groups map almost exactly the same groups as division by sex does. Trans activists know exactly which people are the male people and which are the female people.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision

I've been wondering what happens if the two eldest children are male and the eldest identifies as a TW would they retain the right to inherit titles or do the titles pass to the younger brother?

YANBU. It's utterly deranged.

Oh male rights are preserved all over the place. Fuck female rights though.

Another example is in elite cycling.

Males are allowed to compete in female events because they feel female and their wishes must take precedence over fairness for females.

ExCEPT when it comes to the mixed event where the women members must have been born female because male born women being included would have an unfair advantage and that wouldn't be fair on the male men. You couldn't make it up.

When it's unfair for males their rights are preserved but female fairness is cast aside as irrelevant.

Isn't it odd how the rules always serve an entirely binary, sex based way of thinking that heads, male people win, and tails, female people lose. By those swearing the whole reason for granting male people absolute privilege and dominance and demoting female humans to a subclass of lesser rights is because those male people have changed sex.

They do not believe it for a second. If they actually thought these male people had turned female they would not have the faintest interest in how they felt, what they wanted or needed, or about their interests.

Unsurprising to see they’ve voted against any monitoring measures so they can see how implementation is affecting things on the ground.

its as we’ve been saying in FWR they’ll not monitor anything, in fact they’ll insist people don’t look for problems and then say “but there haven’t been any problems”

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Doesn't this just demonstrate: once you start to follow an ideology whose fundamental belief is that reality is constructed by feelings, not facts, and that you then selectively ignore and silence the facts that mess with your reality - largely by gaslighting, denying and punishing those who will not shut up mentioning the harm you're doing them -

you are fundamentally unfit for any post of any kind of responsibility whatsoever.

Yes YABU. If the law doesn't change in this way some men might be upset, and that would never do.

Looks like it. Here is a trans-id'ing male heir fighting to inherit father's seat in the House of Lords, from earlier this year.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553555-first-trans-peer-a-step-closer-as-hereditary-candidate-claims-seat

Well said!