Scotland says there are only 2 sexes

[BetsyM00]

Would you believe that in 2019 this fact makes the front page of the Herald?:
www.heraldscotland.com/news/17414078.legal-bid-to-allow-scots-to-choose-gender-will-be-rejected/

Also in the Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/07/new-scottish-census-bill-conflates-sex-and-gender-report

and the Times www.thetimes.co.uk/article/non-binary-sex-option-will-not-appear-on-next-census-7d86dks72
I'm hoping some kind soul will provide a share token.

Thanks to the hard work of many women it looks very much like a non-binary option will NOT be added to the mandatory sex question in the 2021 Scottish census. Hurrah!

It's astonishing that someone can even say this without being quietly escorted from the room.

My thought exactly. If you read the article written by this person that I linked to earlier, they really seem to believe that it is impossible to be gender nonconforming without declaring yourself 'non-binary' or 'trans'.

They're talking like a bloody child.

It's not always their fault, education has been such that gender and sex and the education around these issues has, for quite a while, been a total mess.

Some people still seem to be less than clear about the difference between sex and gender.

Or have a vested interest in the conflation of the two.

Yes, OldCrone, exactly. Obviously feminists understand the desire to be treated as neutral, instead of as a stereotype. Which is where, I'm guessing, non-binary originates.

But it's muddled thinking. Should that person (who I am assuming is a natal female), not be offered a mammogram? (Or prostate exam if they are male).

If the answer is yes of course they should, then on what basis?

Why does no one ask that question?

And if they are saying they want to label themselves as non-binary to warn people to not treat them as male or female, then good luck with that.

I understand. But address the sexism, don't try and circumvent it by lying.

And if they are saying they want to label themselves as non-binary to warn people to not treat them as male or female, then good luck with that.

This is what I don't get. Other than use of pronouns, in what situations would your gender identity actually matter?

You would hope to be treated in a similar manner whether male or female in most circumstances - unless different biology is relevant (smear tests, contraception etc), and if different biology IS relevant then it's going to be the biology that takes precedent whether you like it or not.

Well yes, jellyfrizz. I can understand, for instance, not wanting to be talked down to because you're a woman, or be mansplained to. But that ain't going to change by telling them you're non-binary. They'll talk down to you and think you're an idiot at the same time.

That's what I mean. You have to address the sexism at source. Hard, I know. But that's what feminism is for.

But I suspect it's not like that at all. I suspect it's someone who wants to present in their own 'unique' way, and doesn't want people to comment on it. Or does want people to comment on it.

Don't really think Nicola is on board......
www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/scotland-transgenderism-nicola-sturgeon-dismisses-feminist-concern/?fbclid=IwAR10x4BDd5ogPeJpzvosGYyaBtZWe4bjg93ev8bLNvjDPhFRvjOcEstdT1c

Nicola so not on board

FFS Nicola. Not good. Not good at all

"She [NS] didn’t specify which concerns were “misplaced” or why they are."

Says it all really.

She is supporting a policy that she can't explain.

so what rights do Transsexuals not actually have?!

The 60 million dollar question.

And it really would be useful to know the answer to that question, because then perhaps we could make forward progress.

The right to take woman's places.
The right to take woman's records
The right to take replace females in business and education.

The TRA's are crusading for the right to rule.

Actually, this bit isn't so good:

" Transgender people would be advised to select the sex they identify with, as they were in the 2011 census."

What was the point all the "we don't want to conflate sex and gender identity because they mean different things" if trans people don't have to record their sex? So it's basically self-ID?

Yes, self ID.
We can't stop it, because it's government pushed. But how dodgy is it looking right now, how currupt will the government look in a year?

However if the aliens only want human males for their zoo this will mean no one will have to go. So it has an upside.

“What was the point all the "we don't want to conflate sex and gender identity because they mean different things" if trans people don't have to record their sex? confused So it's basically self-ID?“

I expect there’s a hope that the “identifying” lot are a reasonably small lunatic fringe that won’t significantly affect the census stats.

But it doesn't make sense. The whole point is to get accurate data, which they all agreed was necessary, and they all agreed sex and gender had been wrongly conflated, and that this could cause problems...

And then they go and say "but you can just self-ID your gender in the sex box anyway". Now the trans status question will be meaningless, because they won't be able to tell what sex people are and what they are identifying as, which is the whole fecking point of including it. What happened to "meaningful data"?

I'm sorry, I know this is meant to be a good news day, but I'm really disappointed with how flipping stupid that is.

And why did Claire Baker and Jamie Greene abstain? After hearing all that evidence, and, I assume, doing their own research, they couldn't make up their mind?

I've more respect for that fuckwit Ross Greer for at least standing by his misogynistic convictions.

Meanwhile in England there are academic projects conflating sex and gender with aspirations to influence law and policy:

eg futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk

This project is asking (I think) whether we need a legal gender (by which I think they mean sex).. but then it’s very hard to tell what is meant when sex and gender are conflated.

I'm not actually sure if they do specify that the self ID party should remain. Not read whole report properly, so perhaps others can correct, but the relevent part from the report (rather than article) seems to be:

The Committee has received considerable evidence that there was a lack of clarity and awareness regarding the existence of online guidance concerning the self-identification approach adopted in 2011. The Committee considers that there must be absolute clarity with regard to the approach that is adopted in 2021, taking into account the census's primary purpose of robust data-gathering and the Scottish Government's duty to act in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, in which sex is a protected characteristic. The Committee recommends that there is a pro-active information campaign to support the approach adopted which must involve all interested parties who which have expressed views on this issue.

That seems to reinforce EA definitions, says data should be robust and doesn't specify what guidance should be.

Just how have the Twitter/Tumblr brigade and the purple-haired potato-faces been allowed anywhere near influencing the content of a national census?

There’s a Facebook post doing the rounds protesting about the Holyrood census framing of sex/gender. I don't want to paste it on here without permission and I don't know the person who made it. It’s long and sadly predictable; in a nutshell it complains among other things:
a) that trans is nothing as simple as a mismatch between sex and gender
b) that sex isn’t as simple as 'primary school biology' tells us (praying in aid that notorious Nature opinion piece ),
c) that recent feminist theory redefines everything, referring to Judith Butler’s recent article in the New Statesman, with her wilful misreading of de Beauvoir, her assumption that sex at birth is now ‘assigned’ rather than ‘observed’ and her co-option of people with intersex conditions, and her fudging of fundie concerns about sexual knowledge with feminist concerns about what she dismisses as ‘ontology’.
d) that trans people’s own understanding of themselves needs to be taken into account, referring to sandystone.com/empire-strikes-back.html
e) that the debate has been framed in philosophical terms unchanged since the 1970s, without regard for subsequent advances in science and philosophy, sidelining trans voices
f) that the media have been biased against trans voices: that there are no trans staff columnists on any major newspaper and that on broadcast media it’s impossible for a trans voice to be heard without having to share a platform with those who dispute their very existence and even having to share intimate details of their lives.

These are all points that have been addressed elsewhere on here and perhaps R0wantrees has the relevant threads at her fingertips. I've not been following the Scottish debate but it alarms me rather that this post is being shared as gospel. Those sharing it must assume they now have greater than ‘primary school’ understanding of biology.

If the person who posted the FB thread is on here they might be willing to share the full post here as they declare they are open to discussion.