To not fully understand the outrage of the gender recognition reform?

[iamop]

Leaving my views at the door on this subject....I am just hoping to gain some clarification on one main point for my own information.

Opponents of the gender reform bill claim that this will effect single sex spaces. I was appalled hearing this but I've done some reading. And it would seem (unless I'm getting this wrong) that due to the equality act 2010, a man claiming to be a female or vice versa can already use single sex spaces due to gender identity being a protected characteristic under this act. And as the equality act is a UK wide legislation implemented under labour, this has nothing to do with the Scottish gov. So am I correct in saying, that actually the gender reform bill won't actually affect single sex spaces any more so than the equality act already does?

I completely disagree with rapists etc being able to change genders and therefore force their victims and the courts to call them by a different pronoun. I think the age of 16 to be able to do this is bonkers, and I think the SNP have lost my vote moving forward.

I was just looking for some clarification to my main point above to be explained by people smarter than myself

Thanks

And how can we define "living as a woman" if there is confusion over what a woman is?

We are banned from explaining what a woman is- yet some people want to become one.

A man can never know what it is like to be a woman- in the same way I can never know what it is like to be black.
I could style my hair, stain my skin, even get a certificate that says I am black.
But I would still be white.

I think this whole topic has become one like the Emperor clothes myth in that people have jumped on this bandwagon with the additional issue of others being frightened to speak out.

I do not believe we should allow people to change gender (there are a very small number of people born with a medical condition for who I really feel for, they are a unique case and an expiation - due to the condition they are born with.)

I think the Scottish Gov has just gone one stage further - which I hope means the public wake up and realise this should not be happening at all.

I only hope that in a year or so we can look back are realise that this was a fad - as the damage to young people compounded by the pandemic is an absolute tradedgy.

twelly I agree- so many people have drunk the kool aid.
In RL I have to be careful with my views. I have young adult children- they and their friends seem to be exclusively pro gender ID ideas- as does my OH.

I have tried to bring up ideas of being gender critical, but it is met by raised eyebrows. I know my view are seen by many as being trans phobic.

The most outrageous part of this steaming turd of a bill is that they have specifically retained primogeniture. So if the eldest child of a Scottish aristocrat is female, she can change her pronouns and name and legally call herself a man, but not inherit the title and estate. But a convicted sex offender can go through the farcical 3 month process and call himself a woman and access female spaces.

So it's there in black and white:

-a woman can't inherit a dukedom, because that would be unfair on males.
-a man can't be prevented from entering women's toilets/changing rooms/prisons/hospital wards, because that would be unfair on males.

They are literally laughing in our faces with this! How can anyone NOT be outraged?

There is a very good reason why no one on the trans activist side of the debate tries to explain or define any of this.

It's the same reason why the Gender Recognition Act, which refers to "male" and "female" as "genders", does not define any of those three words, despite the fact that any words in a piece of legislation which are not being used in a completely ordinary sense should be defined.

It's because as soon as you attempt to define these things, it becomes plainly apparent that the whole concept is complete nonsense.

So they choose not to define them and hope no one notices.

"Living as a woman" can only mean one of two things.

If a woman is an adult human of the female biological sex, then living as a woman means being alive, and being an adult human of the female biological sex. This means no male person can ever "live as a woman".

If a woman is a person who "identifies as a woman", then living as a woman means whatever the hell you want it to mean, because your identity is personal to you and no two people have the same one. Therefore there is no way to verify that you are living as a woman, because all it means is that you are alive and you say you "identify as a woman", whatever that means to you.

In summary, if "living as a woman" means the first of those two things, only biologically female humans can ever "live as a woman", and if it means the second of those two things, why does anyone care, what does it have to do with the rest of society, what do people who "live as women" have in common with each other, why do they need to share the same changing rooms or compete in the same sports, why are we legislating for this, what is the actual problem that needs fixing here?

But all these questions are too inconvenient so they get brushed under the carpet.

My own view is that the Gender Recognition Act should be repealed because it is completely unworkable. What does it actually achieve? Under the current law, it gives people who have obtained a piece of paper to say that they are the opposite sex to the one they actually are, following a professional diagnosis of dysphoria, the right to be treated as though they are the opposite sex (why are we treating women and men differently in the first place, if sex isn't directly relevant?) except in limited circumstances where the law recognises that biological sex actually matters.

Under the proposed new law, anyone can get this piece of paper, and the law no longer recognises that biological sex actually matters. Our sex based rights are swept aside, essentially for the benefit of people who do not have a professional diagnosis of dysphoria but nonetheless consider that they need this piece of paper with a legal fiction printed on it.

Sorry, what?

Make it make sense.

The most outrageous part of this steaming turd of a bill is that they have specifically retained primogeniture.

It's the same in the Gender Recognition Act, @Beowulfa.

There's a specific carve out to protect the inheritance of male aristocrats, and fuck all to protect female rape survivors or vulnerable women in prison.

There's footage of David Lammy expressly defending this exemption in parliament.

Yes, that would be the same David Lammy who described women who need single sex spaces as "dinosaurs who hoard rights".

It’s so fucking depressing. Whoever thought this would happen? I’d love to know where all these weirdos wanting to be women were thirty years ago. It just wasn’t a thing. Transvestites, sure - they don’t seem to exist anymore but never pretended to be anything other than a man who liked trying on a blouse. I am so sick and tired of this Stonewall et al community wielding such power. Where will it end?

There is no explanation of what it means to live as the opposite gender… In reality there is no particular way of living as a man or a women.

So true. Baffles me how this ideology has got so far despite nobody being able to explain what it actually means for a man to “feel” like a woman.

Why would anyone be happy with male fantasy being given priority over female reality?

Why would anyone be happy with basic safeguarding being removed from women and children?

Why would anyone be so fucking stupid that they think men who claim to be women suddenly become harmless and benign?

To be legally forced to go along with the utter batshit that men with dysphoria or a sexual paraphilia are actually women is absurd.

'Gender' isn't sex so what the fuck is a legal 'gender' and why on earth should this indefinable sexist crap be used to allow a subset of men to access spaces where women and children are at their most vulnerable? Based on nothing but their subjective feelings?

What it boils down to is that women's rights are being removed because they hurt some men's feelings.
Men have been allowed to redefine our sex category so they can pretend they belong in it.
It's quite literally sex discrimination which is being ignored because we are women.

I honestly cannot fathom any woman believing the bullshit that these men are in any way oppressed because they didn't have access to female spaces, sports and services.

They are men. If people used the correct words to describe those of the male sex class it all becomes very clear.

Most of these men keep their penis.

The only reason it has got this far is because nobody has tried to explain it, but have simply shouted "bigot!" at anybody pointing out the obvious flaws in this ideology.

I'm just baffled how declaring a "gender" now means you can change your actual sex in laws self ID as whatever you like but muddling reality in law will not go well. (Ex legal bod). It makes no sense to me.

I'd be interested to see the definitions section of the bill. How are they defining the terms they've enshrined in law?

what happens if you break the rule to live as a woman forever? Surely it’s open to change your mind back again.
you can’t have 16 year olds making decisions like that.

Gender identity isn’t protect under EA 2010z

There are exemptions meaning that even those who have recognised medical gender dysphoria, can not access all single sex spaces just because of that.

This won’t get through UK will block it (rightly so) and NS will use it as an excuse to hate on Westminster again.

Men can never become women.

HTH.

John made that deal and John doesn't exist anymore...

💯

Given that they don't seem to think using your penis to rape a woman is inconsistent with living as a woman (since they support male rapists who "identify as women" being housed in women's prisons), or that having IUI with a view to getting pregnant and giving birth to a child is inconsistent with living as a man (Freddy McConnell is so brave and stunning) I have literally no idea what someone would have to do to be at risk of being prosecuted for this.

I highly doubt they will make any attempt to define any of these terms.

They are literally laughing in our faces with this! How can anyone NOT be outraged?

Quite. There is nothing subtle about it at all. Parading vile misogyny now gets you claps and cheers and all the SM likes.

how did we get to this? 😡

@babyjellyfish then before considering anything else it is bad law. Law needs to explicit and clear about what it does and what it covers.

Yes, but the Gender Recognition Act is bad law for exactly this reason.

Instead of clarifying or even repealing it, they're going further in the wrong direction, for reasons that are a total mystery to most sane people.

I may pop a look at that too. I've only come to this from the news stories this week. I'm appalled

The Gender Recognition Act refers to "male" and "female" as "genders".

I'm sorry, but the words "male" and "female" are biological terms relating to reproductive role. This is true across the animal kingdom. If you take your new cat to the vet, the vet will not ask your cat how it identifies before deciding whether it should be neutered or spayed, they will look to see whether it has bollocks or not.

If you are using the words "male" and "female" to mean anything else, particularly in a piece of legislation, you need to explain what you are using them to mean in this context.

The Gender Recognition Act does not do this. It just expects everyone to know what this means.

What does "female gender" mean?

Wears dresses? Preferred Barbies to Lego as a child? Drinks prosecco rather than beer? Likes shopping but not football?

Or does it just mean "wants to use women's changing rooms"?

It would be helpful if they could say the quiet part out loud.

I'm UK-born but have been living abroad all my adult life. Wish I could have self-ID'd as the nationality I've been living as for the past 25 years, would have saved me months of post-Brexit stress and expense.

I maybe wrong - bit it will be a criminal offence to abuse this new law so if you say you're a woman and you change your mind later, then you could be prosecuted. There is a transition period of an additional 3 months (I think?) So does this mean that someone who is not sure who they are, decides to get this certificate after living as a woman for 3 months, then maintains the 'glow' for a further 3 months+ to then slowly realise that perhaps being a woman wasn't the answer, but maybe they're gay or just enjoy feminine things but still feel male. Do these people then risk jail if they detrans?
How many times can you declare that you're female and back out in the warm out period?
I'm not sure about either of these, but this whole exercise seems politically motivated to me - Westminster has to act if UK laws are impacted (and they could be) and would have to intervene. She will use that as Westminster voting against the will of the Scottish people. Not that she cares that she's voting against the will of a significant chunk of Scottish people herself.

👏👏👏