SCOTTISH GRA REFORM ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT FORWARD

[Mbwashenzi]

It was going to be announced on the 25th - now moved forward to Thursday. Anyone going to join me in the public gallery at Holyrood??

twitter.com/wornoutmumhack/status/1140953953758261248?s=19

boatyardblues I was very excited to see a new word , so I looked it up, before realising the typo. Such a shame because I like the look of it. As words can mean anything now, can we adopt it?

Guardian write up: amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/20/scotland-to-run-new-consultations-before-updating-gender-law

Surprisingly neutral account from the Graun.

The caution before moving forward with reform is welcome. However, the problem remains that the proposals are fundamentally unworkable if they rely on the presumption that it is possible to both fully allow people to live as an acquired gender (what does this mean in practice which does not resort to stereotypes?) and protect same sex spaces. The only way to do this is to accept that living as an acquired gender is circumscribed and does not allow one to be treated as the opposite sex.

Hence, one would be legally allowed to dress, call yourself and be pronouned in a manner conventionally associated with the opposite sex but one does not acquire all the protections of that sex (same sex spaces etc), but a separate set of protections for transgender people.

In other words, recognise that transgender is a category in its own right deserving of its own protections. Presumably no women’s groups would have an issue with this, but transgender groups would as they tend to equate gender with sex, and this relies on the concept of a legal sex.

The most important point recognised in the debate in Scotland is that gender does not equate with sex, and that there are risks to women and girls from the proposed law. It remains to be seen how seriously these risks are taken.

Uhuh
hirley Anne Somerville, the equalities secretary, said she would launch new consultations to ensure that anxieties that women and girls could fall victim to predatory men or lose access to single-sex services were properly addressed. oh ok then

Somerville said the Scottish government was determined to update the legal rights of trans men and women, with a simpler, quicker process to allow people to get a new gender recognition certificate through self-declaration rather than requiring medical evidence. bla bla bla ‘living as a woman’ bla bla

Same crap then?

I was pleasantly surprised. I think making the government issuing guidance on it explicitly spelling out what “living in their acquired gender” means would be a good step to highlight how much of this is based on sex stereotypes.

So the man I see with a beard wearing a spaghetti strapped flouncy sun dress and DMs, generally seen stalling up and down the Main Street eyeballing people aggressively - ‘living as a woman’ or not?

We all know what ‘living as a woman’ means.

It means whatever men want it to mean.

I don't really see how the government can sort this out-if GRCs are confidential & no one can enquire if someone has one....how can transwomen with GRCs be denied access to female only space?

The only way is to stop issuing GRCs & let people dress & present how they wish.

People can already change the sex marker on their driving license & passport. (which is not terribly sane policy either.)

Birth certificates should not be messed with.

I do not see how the issues can be resolved either.

However, there is at least a discussion being had now, with acknowledgement of some of the issues. The more airing of matters, the better, in my opinion, and that is thanks to the women who have spoken out. It is better for everyone that the government listens to concerns. I also hold out some hope that better minds than mine can come up with a solution.

The statement by James Morton is illustrative, though - he says long delays embolden people who are prejudiced against trans people - which I take to mean he is concerned that delays will allow issues to be properly scrutinised and concerns will grow about this policy (not prejudice). Whereas the point surely is that legislation has to work for everyone, not some at the expense of others. The government statement essentially admits that proper scrutiny has not happened. It is questionable whether it can happen in the timetable allowed - impact assessments and a draft bill for consultation over the summer. But it is a step forward from these decisions being entirely taken behind closed doors.

Most significant thing here prob isn't getting the consultation reopened (Brilliant achievement though that was ) .

Stepping back a bit - what has been done here is that the Trans lobby have lost their monopoly as the only people with a say on these issues.. and its been established that it is legitimate to question their statements and assumptions.

TRA's demanded (above all else) silence from everyone else - that demand has been rejected - that is a monumental blow to their chances as scrutiny is what they can't afford.

even seemingly supportive q's like that asked by Pauline McNeill about how flse applications would be established - throw up massive bear traps ...

We owe a great deal to the women in Scotland ( and their supporters from elsewhere) who have made this happen.

This changes a lot.

That said

I noticed Patrick Harvie didn’t applaud SAS after she’d given her speech. He really is an odious little toad.

..some things though just can't be changed

If someone 'living in their acquired gender' is to be a legal requirement for a GRC, then it has to be legally defined. Otherwise it simply means whatever each individual wants it to mean.

When they say none of the exemptions in the equality act will be changed, does that include primogeniture exemptions?

That one's in the GRA not the EA so they could change it if they wanted.

The probably with legally defining what 'living as a chosen gender' is it enshrines the worst stereotypes of both sexes into law because it can't possibly be based on anything else. I don't understand how that can be a progressive move for a society.

Yes definitely oldcrone. And that's where it would start to fall apart I think because how can you possibly mandate what it means to be a woman other than being a female person? Anything else would just be offensive stereotypes - which has been what's been used so far - but now is our chance to challenge it.

And of course the same for man being anything other than a male person.

Which is why a definition should be pushed for, OvaHere, because once it's out in the open, more people will realise how regressive this is. But you can't make a law about 'living in an acquired gender' without defining what that actually means.

Absolutely, Old Crone. The fudges that were allowed when the original GRA was passed can't be allowed this time because (1) the legislation will no longer potentially apply only to a tiny number of people and (2) there is no requirement under international obligations to introduce legislation as there was then.

twitter.com/ScotlandTonight/status/1141826809819910144

A TV clip with SAS defending her decision to do further consultation. I'm pleased she mentioned that women's rights have been hard won over the years.

Just caught up. I am heartened by this result. Firstly because now we have a debate and secondly because the work of all the women's groups who fought so hard to be heard, have been. There is along way to go, but this is a start. Well done you brave, brave women.

This is great news. As OldCrone says, the regressive sexist nature of this is clear once you have to define the terms. And proper impact assessments will show how damaging it is for women. I'm hoping that then we in Ireland can point our useless politicians to Scotland's assessments and get this rolled back.

In other words, recognise that transgender is a category in its own right deserving of its own protections. Presumably no women’s groups would have an issue with this, but transgender groups would as they tend to equate gender with sex, and this relies on the concept of a legal sex

Transgender groups argue that separate provision for biological women and for people self declaring equates to discrimination and treating of self declared people as a different type of person, not as women. They see that as 'inequality' and 'lesser rights than other women'.

That is the part that has to be faced up to. Absolutely people should be able to believe whatever they want, live however they want, dress and present regardless of societal pressure around sex stereotypes and there is a strong case to provide resources and facilities for those who identify away from their biological sex for their privacy, dignity, safety and recognition of their choices. All fine. However biology is a fixed fact and you cannot allow males to identify into resources for the female sex without this heavily damaging women and removing their equality.

There is also the precedent here, that once it is fixed in law that personal choice must be accepted over material reality, other trans groups will want equal rights. So we will have trans aged and trans abled people who will want to be allowed to be 55 in a baby doll frock at your child's preschool, nappies changed on demand please, and trans abled people with carers and benefits and converted cars.... and that's just two already existing groups. How do you say yes to one and no to another? It won't be possible to argue it. Society can't set this precedent.

It HAS to be, full recognition of self ID - and trying to police 'living as' the opposite sex is ridiculous, it can't be done - and facilities provided in law separate to the facilities and resources for biological sex, but clear lines in law that biology is a fixed fact and in those few situations where female biology matters, transgendered people and biologically sexed people will be treated differently in order to meet and respect everyone's needs.

This will be argued against, but since that argument boils down to 'but women should lose their rights to give trans people what they want and it's just and worthwhile that they should', (ie the poster on here the other day saying they were prepared to accept a rise in assaults, exclusions and harm to women to provide full inclusion for trans people) it's not going to go well in the public eye. It's flat out sexism and as a pp laid out in their post, it's against a number of laws.

Whilst I am hopefull-WTF happened in Canada? Might Scotland not just say, its working there so we will roll it out here?

I don't think anyone can afford to be complacent that we're winning.

I agree that "living as a woman" is definitely a lever to prise the lid off this absurdity - especially when it gets on the radar of the previously unaware section of the general public. It's exactly the sort of thing my elderly parents (for example) would immediately understand to be bollocks.

Surely it means "conforming to stereotyping based on your sex" which we should be trying to move away from not encouraging it.

Isn't it ridiculous we are in the situation of having to say things like this!

Might Scotland not just say, its working there so we will roll it out here?

This is most probably what is going to happen.