GRA Reform - Scotland

[BuffysBigSister]

www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced.pdf

Some light reading for those who are interested

@ScreamingMeMe

That reminds me: I came across this yesterday in the toxic bird app.

Good to see that survey showing 90% of 608 respondents said a flat No to self-ID.

@Signalbox

Well we will be able to tell that it's likely not a genuine way forward for that individual if there are a load of communications from that person saying along the lines of 'I'm going to prove what a stupid Act this is by declaring that I'm a man / getting my son / husband / brother to declare that he's a woman'.

Why would anyone even care if it is a "genuine way forward"? Trans activists have been pretty successful in "deconstructing" the words "woman" and "man", rendering those words completely meaningless. Trans activist also argue that GRC's don't have any impact on anyone other than the GRC holder. So who really is going to care why someone is making an application. I mean really why shouldn't anyone apply for a GRC for any reason at all? If it's there as an option and doesn't affect anyone else, it really shouldn't be reserved for a few special people with rainbow souls.

I had been under the impression that there was concern from some quarters that men would disingenuously claim to be women and gain a GRC in an attempt to get better access to women in order to abuse them...is that not the case that that was a concern?

If this is a concern then surely you would want to see a criminal penalty for fraudulently obtaining a GRC, no?

You certainly will be able to prove in some cases that this has been fraudulently obtained. For eg. If a person has a consistent communication history of saying "I definitely feel that I am a woman, in line with my genitals, and I'm going to make a point of showing how stupid this act is by obtaining a GRC to say I am a man' and then when they gain the GRC go onto social media again and say 'Look, tadah, I managed to get one - see how easy it is for anyone to claim they are the opposite sex', - I would say that would probably meet an evidential threshold for that person fraudulently obtaining a GRC.

They have demonstrated clearly they have not sought it out of a genuine belief they are trans, but rather to make a political point.

Of course in law it can be hard to prove things at times but that does not mean you should not you should not have a criminal penalty attached. Otherwise we would be taking terrible steps like ignoring rape in marital relationships, which is also notoriously difficult to establish. Just because something is difficult to prove does not mean you should not declare it a criminal act nor have a criminal penalty for it.

How would you prove someone did not genuinely have a cross-sex gender identity @suggestionsplease1?

What would you use as proof that they were not genuine?

There is no definition of what it is to 'live as' the opposite sex, so how could you ever prove that someone was not doing it?

Freddy McConnell has not lost Freddy's GRC, nor has Freddy been prosecuted for fraudulently obtaining a GRC, even though the first thing Freddy did after obtaining a GRC was to take steps to become pregnant, something only women can do. How can this be described as living as a man?

If a female person can gain legal recognition as a man, then immediately deliberately get pregnant, and this is considered to be acceptable for someone living as a man, how can anyone be proven not to be living in their chosen 'gender'?

This is an extension of the circular definition of 'woman': 'a woman is anyone who says they are a woman'. We now also have: 'a person living as a man is anyone who says they are living as a man'. What else can it be? Nobody can ever be said to be not living in their chosen gender because there is no definition of what it is to live as the opposite sex, so nobody can ever be prosecuted for failing to do this once they have a GRC.

It seems that according to the Equalities Act, where Gender Reassignment is a protected characteristic and the status of Gender Reassignment is attained simply by proposing to reassign your gender.

It seems therefore that we have self-ID already. Even though the Equalities Act allows for exemptions - such as refuges- I have the impression no one dares to apply them, or even wants to possibly, except for the Girls’ Day School Trust - not even prisons or refuges.

So please would someone explain how much difference reforming the GRA would make in practice? I am not asking rhetorically but just want to understand.

I have only just properly realised Gender Reassignment and a Gender Recognition Certificate are not the same. They sound so similar.

I got muddled as I am tired. I hope you can see what I meant.

I know what you are asking.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment means that a person shouldn't be treated less favourably than someone without that characteristic. So a man who says he's going to undergo gender reassignment should not be discriminated against.

This is not the same as saying they should be treated as a woman.

The GRC changes a person's legal sex for all purposes except those situations like single-sex changing rooms or sports where is is reasonable to exclude a person on the basis of their sex.

To get a GRC and be legally the opposite sex is only available for those who have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The GRA reform takes this away so anyone can simply choose to change their sex.

If this legislation passes could someone get a grc in scotland than move to England, would it still be valid? Will there be a residency requirement to get a scottish grc?

If they accept detransitioners exist, they have to accept that people don't know their true mind and identity.

Which makes the whole thing null and void.

On Wednesday we had an MSP minister say that “ 16 & 17 year olds should not be in prison, their young minds are still developing “ and the very next day The SNP say 16 & 17 year old girls can just decide that they are men! It’s completely ridiculous, irresponsible and dangerous.

Surely 'transmen' having babies means that pregnancy and childbirth are no longer the preserve of 'cis'- women - also indicated by removal of sex-based language in maternity and other previously hoarded special rights of that group of women, so not too indicative of not 'living as the chosen gender?
Also, a GRC gives legal 'gender', which will mean 'sex', obviously, so sex-based provision sorted nicely.

🙄

@littlbrowndog

Robison

What the fuck? She can't be seriously saying that or she's just blocking out alllllll the times this precise thing has happened. What does she think PVG's are for exactly?

That Robison quote has infuriated me. It's either extreme naivety or a conscious decision to simply ignore reality.

mobile.twitter.com/MeanwhileIPaint/status/1281980419609681921

The problem that Robison has now is that there is half the electorate will read what she said, on the anniversary of the death of Sarah Everard, take a deep breath in, cross their arms, jut out their jaw and say "Ohdyabloodythinkso?"

And the other 48% will say ‘whatthebloosyhliswrongwiththesepeople’.

The remaining 2% will be weeping in the streets (and tik tok) and hugging each other, declaring their lives are now literally saved and deciding if ‘rainbow sprinkles’ is a better name than ‘unicorn daydream’. Then deciding what next to demand.

It's mind boggling, @KittenKong. It really is.

Male nurse pointing out the great big fucking safeguarding loophole on twitter:

twitter.com/mogatrons/status/1499020157993246723?s=21

1. I'm a nurse.

It took 3 years of study plus numerous exams and assessments PLUS a PVG/disclosure report involving the police and judiciary before I was allowed the opportunity to care for females AND only with their explicit consent.

....

2. under the NuSNP GRA any man can claim to be a woman, wait a few weeks then simply walk right into female only safe spaces WITHOUT their consent, and if those females object to the voyeurism they're guilty of a hate crime. DO YOU SEE IT YET?!? #womenwontwheest #SexNotGender.

@IcakethereforeIam

If this legislation passes could someone get a grc in scotland than move to England, would it still be valid? Will there be a residency requirement to get a scottish grc?

If it all passes in time I'm going to find out. I'm off for a holiday soon so self id ing as living there (well if words have no meaning etc) Plan to get the grc, then bring it back to England after my hols and see how far I get changing everything here on the back of it.

For pp you can obviously report an anonymous mumsnet account for getting a grc under false pretences, good luck with that.

I haven't had time to read through this (I came across it looking for something else).

Read over a cuppa later today I think: www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2022-03-03.22.0&p=14056

@DoubleTweenQueen

Surely 'transmen' having babies means that pregnancy and childbirth are no longer the preserve of 'cis'- women - also indicated by removal of sex-based language in maternity and other previously hoarded special rights of that group of women, so not too indicative of not 'living as the chosen gender? Also, a GRC gives legal 'gender', which will mean 'sex', obviously, so sex-based provision sorted nicely.

🙄

Oh good grief.

How do you define "cis" and "gender"? If it is as per the usual

gender = sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with either sex

and

cis = a person who accepts and prefers to embody the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with their own sex

then there is of course no such thing as "cis-women" because we are not walking talking stereotypes. Femininity is not what makes a woman.

And pregnancy and childbirth have never and will never be the preserve of feminine women and girls. What a ludicrous notion.

Pregnancy and childbirth are and will however remain the preserve of women and girls. Every single human being on this planet in its entire history owes his or her existence to a woman or a girl who gave them life. And their bodies were able to do that not because they embraced femininity but because they are female.

Furthermore, as this excellent paper just published explains, the removal of sex-based language in maternity services is detrimental to mothers and babies. I recommend you educate yourself about the dangers of such politicised interference in healthcare:

Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full

As for your last sentence, I cannot parse it. What do you mean by that?

transpregnancy.leeds.ac.uk/about/

Prof Sally's research into trans pregnancy was to conclude in 2020. I haven't seen anything published - anyone seen it?

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

transpregnancy.leeds.ac.uk/about/

Prof Sally's research into trans pregnancy was to conclude in 2020. I haven't seen anything published - anyone seen it?

Have you tried looking in the wine cellar?

@CharlieParley It was a sarcastic take on an overall view of the ridiculous situation developing.

Bet that's a far more sensible conclusion than whatever Prof H comes up with, @OvaHere

Have you tried looking in the wine cellar

Has anyone asked the dog that ate the Welsh thingumybob?
Christ as soon as I press post I'll remember wtf it was the Welsh thingumy is called