Thread 7 - No pitch forks or Pom Poms - Scottish political shenanigans

[TheShadowyFeminist]

New 🧵

Nicola fiddles while Scotland burns

I would actually be really interested to hear what women want from the whole GRA thing because I genuinely can't articulate my thought and my own opinions are at times very oppositional if hat makes sense and cancel each other out.

I cannot get my head round it.

@StarryEyeSurprise

theferret.scot/claim-snp-funding-paedophile-charter-groups-ffs/

The Wings blogger has utterly lost the plot now.

I find him almost unhinged.

@annabelindajane

Some of my friends are just too busy bogged down with hard work , ( sometimes 2 jobs) children, pets , housework to be even properly aware of all this and just roll their eyes in horror at all the trans and gender issues . They know but not how far down the road it’s gone . These are probably the ladies we need , lots of common sense .I think a lot of us seem totally bewildered by it all and I wonder if society is just overthinking everything to the point we need committee on committee .

I mean they are your friends and you know best but this is all quite patronising. How do you know what they do or don't know? Maybe they're rolling their eyes because they don't much care? Have you spoken to them about it? What did they say when you told them your opinion?

Take a look at the ILGA stuff linked to yesterday @StarryEyeSurprise. And the analysis on here and on the feminist boards, as well as Twitter. For Women Scotland is good.

In other “news” in our progressive land, Alba is claiming the support of Robert the Bruce.

Scottish politics is fucking inane

@WouldBeGood

In other “news” in our progressive land, Alba is claiming the support of Robert the Bruce.

Scottish politics is fucking inane

Erm...what?

@StarryEyeSurprise

theferret.scot/claim-snp-funding-paedophile-charter-groups-ffs/

The Wings blogger has utterly lost the plot now.

How is this losing the plot?

ILGA does have Scottish members, and ILGA did sign the March 2020 letter discussed here, Why is it OK for Scottish groups to call everybody homophobic phobic fir asking questions, when the Irish groups asked about it responded rationally to the criticism?

@StatisticallyChallenged here you go, brace yourself

I struggle with this too, but I keep coming back to thinking that the GRA and the concept of a GRC doesn't really make sense to me in the current context, except as a means of validating an individual's identity.

To an extent I'm not sure that gender - as opposed to sex - should necessarily have a legal standing. It possibly made more sense when the GRA was originally created and the definition of trans was somewhat clearer but now - when we have ever expanding lists of genders appearing which seem to be trying to put people in ever smaller boxes - I'm just not sure it does.

So I find myself thinking "what's the point of GRA." We have same sex marriage - I believe inability to marry was a major driver originally - so that's negated. It creates a legal fiction, but one which can be negated via the Equality Act exemptions if there is a valid reason to differentiate (as I understand it) so what does it achieve? It also doesn't seem to fit with the more varied concept of 95 (or however many) genders so how does that work? You can transition legally from M to F or vice versa, but if you're polygender you're stuck.

I also struggle to think of examples where you would want to differentiate on the basis of gender - I can think of situations where no differentiation is necessary at all, and ones where sex based is necessary, (which generally can be covered be the EA even if organisations don't) but not really gender based.

I understand that it's proponents would like to see it strengthened so that there is no legal difference between M&TM/W&TW, which of course many oppose, but in it's current guise what does it achieve in reality?

Sorry, that's maybe not much of an answer. It's a big, messy subject and a very tricky one to discuss.

@sempre I'm going to agree with you that a citizens assembly may not be the best solution in this case. Though I am a fan of CAs for widening debate across the population. As many are saying here, it's the narrow range of people engaged in the debate that is the problem. Most people do not have the time or space in their lives, so policy is captured and changes by stealth. That is what I mean by opening up.

[quote WouldBeGood]@StatisticallyChallenged here you go, brace yourself[/quote]
Holy fuck. Have you seen the video? I mean...

Oh, god, no, I’m not sure I’m strong enough for a video...

The Bruce supporting Alba is shark jumping of epic proportions.

As if things weren't bonkers enough this election. We've already got Bonny Prince Bob.

What's next? A hologram of Sean Connery (like Kanye West's birthday gift to Kim Kardashian where her dead father tells her her husband is fab) telling us Alex Salmond will fulfil his destiny & achieve the impossible?

Enough already!

@TheShadowyFeminist don’t give them ideas! 😂

They’ve also invoked the Declaration of Arbroath- ffs. It’s embarrassing. And all in this weird “Scottish speak” that no one in the real world uses!

I thought we'd got all that shortbread tin nationalism out of our systems when Mel Gibson fell off his pedestal in spectacular fashion. Angus MacFadyen is still clinging onto Braveheart's coat tails, seemingly oblivious to the fact we've all grown up & moved on. I've not watched his 'Bruce' film. By all accounts it's dire. I wouldn't put it past him to think this will give his returns on that film a wee boost.

I can see CAs working best where the participants feel from the outset they have something to gain/ lose from the decisions made. So the recent one on policy directions, or proposed ones on climate change policy and so on. These are things that everyone can grasp, and see that the outcome will affect them and everyone else. And although the details may well be quite technical, and need outlining to the participants, overall the decisions to be made are relatively simple.

I have to say that gender doesn't really strike me as one of those things. Obviously lots of people feel very strongly about it, and I can see that there may be conflicting rights and so on. But I find the whole concept rather nebulous and wooly. I'm really not sure what "gender" is, other than just a way of saying sex that doesn't make teenage boys giggle at the back of the class. I don't consider myself to have a "gender" distinct from my sex though I realise some people may do. But to me, it doesn't really seem the kind of thing that I would want to give up x hours of my precious free time to discuss (plus arrange whatever time off/ childcare I would have to!), as it's just not that important to me! Maybe I should be more concerned.. but it's only when you start looking into the issues that you realise that it may well be something that is concerning iyswim. If, as a "normal" member of the public, I was asked if I wanted to be in a CA on gender, I'd probably decline, as I wouldn't think it was relevant to me, or that I wouldn't understand the concepts discussed. So I'd imagine that CA would comprise mainly people who already knew something about the area and had relatively set opinions and views. I just can't see it being that useful, really.

That strikes me as the kind of area that the government just has to make a decision- balancing views from different groups and having regard for rights already set in law. They are going to annoy people on both sides, inevitably, by either going too far or not far enough, but they have to do what is best for society as a whole. I'm not sure they are going to learn much more from an assembly!

@ResilienceWanker again I think you are doing you fellow citizens a disservice here. Are you not a 'normal' member of the public? Are the people on this thread not?

This seems to be a bit of a thing on MN. The idea that posters here can grasp things and are above manipulation but others aren't.

It's strange to me.

Ok so I have just seen on Twitter that UK gov is taking ScotGov to Supreme Court for 2 bills. Does anyone know what they are or am I being thick? NS raging on Twitter

I believe one's the UNCRC.

No, that's my point. I am a normal member of the public and I have very little grasp of it, and, as a result, very little interest in it. I wouldn't consider myself a stakeholder, as I don't consider myself to have a "gender"- or rather, if I do, and it's just my sex, it's just a part of me that I can't change and have no need or desire to change, but it's not something that defines who I am. Parts of being a woman do of course (motherhood, pay, family life, bodily functions and hormones, health services and so on) but I don't see my "gender" (or sex) in itself as that important to me. Sorry if that gets me thrown off mumsnet! I can't speak for others on the thread, and it may be that they would want to be on such a CA. But that's not really in the spirit of a CA surely... they should be structured around things that everyone feels they have a stake in, not just those who are already interested in the subject area.

Thanks @StarryEyeSurprise I did find it eventually.

No I think you speak very articulately about it and would be exactly the kind of view that would benefit a citizens assembly.

@StarryEyeSurprise

I believe one's the UNCRC.

Ffs

The gender pish is easy.

There are two sexes: make and female. Sex can’t change. Refer to that, and men and women, and forget gender which is an arbitrary construct.

People can call themselves any gender they like and shouldn’t be harmed because of it. But it’s not a reasonable issue to take up so much of politicians’ time. Especially the SNP and the Greens who are both obsessed by this.

Normal people don’t want this. They want good schools, healthcare, etc.

Anyway, that’s that solved: no need for a CA on the GRA now 😂😂