Changing law/changing society

[SuperLoudPoppingAction]

Having watched 'on the basis of sex' yesterday I was struck by the common sense approach rbg had of noticing how society had changed and then arguing laws should change to match the new attitudes and practices of societies.

In Scotland at the moment I worry that policy makers and law makers seem to live in a bubble with the yogyakarta principles playing on a loop with a whale song background and the laws being proposed are quite out of step with social attitude Survey results.

I just wonder what happens when our laws are so different to how most people feel and behave.

Obviously policy has an immediate effect on schools eg mixed sex restrooms, policing of speech so maybe I will be a total anachronism in 10 years or so.

It's weird to think of a 40-something lesbian as anachronistic.

Is anyone else wondering how this will resolve itself?

Especially as no political parties are taking a different stance.

Is anyone else wondering how this will resolve itself?

It won't, not for years yet anyway.

The public will start protecting each other and ignoring laws that put children and adults in danger.
Massive amounts of crime will go unreported and peopel will take the law into their own hands.

Laws shouldn’t reflect societal norms per se. The line should be drawn at protecting rights and the rights should be what reflects societal norms. That’s why we’ve moved away from criminalising homosexuality or bdsm but maintained protections against interference with property/the person. That’s the theory at least. The reasoning should start with identifying whether there is a right and moving from there rather than baringreference to what moral views the majority hold. It’s the role of the individual to make moral decisions, it’s the role of the legislate to protect rights.

I'm almost 60 and all my life I've read reports that, given a free vote, the majority of the population would vote to have the death penalty and probably corporal punishment back. Some laws fly in the face of public opinion — and quite rightly so. By changing the law and normalising certain things (homosexuality, equal marriage) you can change attitudes. This is, I suspect, what the TRAs are hoping for. Their problem is that they don't represent a homogenous group. 'Trans' includes everyone from weekend cross-dressers, sexual fetishists, AGPs and fully surgically and hormonally remodelled transsexuals. It's too broad and dubious a spectrum.

That's the thing isn't it?
Often it's quite a handy thing in my work to be able to eg point to laws that say 'x is not permissible' and I think it sends a strong statement about the kind of society we ought to be working towards.
But I just wonder whether you have to bring the population with you to some degree.
Especially when it's flying in the face of lived experience.

I just wonder whether you have to bring the population with you to some degree.

When you don't, you get Brexit and Trump.

The trouble is an elite group, who don't have much contact with the real world, who see themselves as Peter Mandelson did (oh the pathology there) as in a 'post democratic era'. Put on this earth with their enlightened, superior views, to create laws that force the stupid and uncivilised riff raff into doing the right liberal kind of things willing or not. With punishment for not doing what they're told.

History doesn't show this ending well. Ever.

Yep.
It's hard - counter-intuitive - to characterize them as an elite especially in Scotland. They're often working class people with socialist politics but it's like there is a weird fog around this particular line of thinking and policy-making.

Politicians in general do not represent the mainstream these days. Brexit showed that, all major political parties campaigned for a remain vote. What's happening in Scotland is particularly farcical and is motivated at least in part by the SNP wanting to be seen as different to other nationalists.

OP, if you’re talking about the SNP and that narcissist Sturgeon, they’re entirely style over substance. It’s all about trying to look progressive and scoring woke points.
Did you see her chilling remark that she is the “corporate parent” of everyone in Scotland?
Good luck trying to get her to consider public opinion on any subject. She’s still pushing for a second independence referendum, despite every poll since 2014 showing a majority of Scots are against it. Living in a bubble indeed.

I was watching A Man for All Seasons yesterday on tv, where Sir Thomas More was explaining to a large court led by Cromwell that no, he wasn't going to sign a letter agreeing Henry VIIIth's supremacy over the Pope and all Catholic, just because Henry had strongly held, deep beliefs that this was right (and conveniently would also let him divorce his wife), because it went against his own beliefs on reality.

And thought, as he was executed, bloody hell, here come the 1530s round again. It was incredibly familiar, the whole recant/you may yet be saved/ sincere promise stuff could have come right off Twitter.

The whole trans stuff probably represents the first time that many posters on here find themselves wishing to push back against the kind of society other people tell them they must embrace. If they don't, the tactic is to use shame and hate legislation to police wrong think. This has actually gone on for years it just hadn't been on most people who are feminists would disagree with. It's been said many times before but this is how trump got in. Opposing immigration is and always was another vote winner.

It's hard - counter-intuitive - to characterize them as an elite especially in Scotland

There is a political elite in Scotland. There are 2 quite separate elite classes. One is those with money (whether the ultra wealthy of the traditional landed estates or comfortably off middle classes) but since Scotland became a Labour fiefdom in 1955 that class is not exercising power and influence other than in their own domestic and business spheres (and I'm including in the definition of "own domestic sphere and business" the large traditional estates)

The political elite in Scotland is quite a different kettle of fish.

It’s interesting RGB (who I like immensely on most issues) argues that, because most dark-arts type societal manipulators argue that you change the law first then people follow.

Humanity is three meals from barbarism, still. Only a minority of people can be relied on not to break the law because of morality (don’t they say that x% will never steal, x% will always steal and x% will of the opportunity is correct?)

The key is to make the change inevitable and pushback societally unacceptable. This can result in good, for example anti drink driving campaigns and wearing seatbelts/kids in car seats.
Where you run into problems is where the law impacts negatively on people.

So being cynical - take a few examples.

1. gay rights. Gay marriage doesn’t harm straight marriage, so even someone quite bigoted isn’t directly affected by laws to prevent harm to gay people. Ditto laws to prevent racial abuse. It just doesn’t affect the majority negatively, so people accept it.

1. TRA demands. If sex based protections are gone, that’s going to affect a LOT of people. Right now it’s small numbers of things like men in women’s jails, etc, but it’s growing. Once a critical mass of people realise what’s happening there will be HUGE pushback because this directly affects all women, all girls and any man who has a woman or girl in their life they care about.

It’s also legislating against reality. When you say ‘your lesbian neighbours / your black neighbours deserve the same protections as you’ then that’s just common sense. Of course they do. No denial of reality there.
But when you’re saying ‘this man is literally a woman and unless you go along with this, you’re a hateful bigot ’ then you’re legislating against reality and people are going to tell you to fuck off.

There is only so far you can push people. I wonder, and I worry, how all this is going to pan out. I don’t think it’s going to be pleasant.

If nothing else it's reminding me that affirming, accepting attitudes towards lesbian and gay people are not something I can take for granted.

I see so many nasty comments about 'lgbt' just now.

But then...

I was shocked by my own reaction to our consultation on civil partnership for opposite sex couples.
Literally like 'this changes the nature of my own CP' type of thing.

Just made me think of how easy it is to fall into that kind of attitude.

Whereas maybe if our media were a bit more earnest like in the 90s and I'd seen a few couples on Eastenders or corrie making the case for it, I might have thought of it from another perspective.
I miss the long documentaries and blatant public interest didactic earnest content.

according to The Times, our childrens education is being pushed over even more.

I’m fine they are going to be told about gay / lesbian families, but I bet the focus is going to be a lot more about trans families. The troubles that the real trans families are experiencing will naturally be sugar-coated.