Ministers threaten legal action over Scotland's trans laws

[flyingbuttress43]

Apologies if this is in a thread somewhere but I couldn't see it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/09/ministers-threaten-legal-action-fears-nicola-sturgeons-gender/

UK ministers have threatened to begin legal action over concerns about trans tourism. The Government has urged Nicola Sturgeon to scrap her overhaul of transgender laws allowing people as young as 15 to change their legal gender simply be signing a declaration.

Senior Whitehall figures fear it will put the rest of the UK single sex spaces in jeopardy across the country. Kemi Badenoch has written to Nicola Sturgeon expressing dismay at the legislation and has summoned the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for social justice to a meeting to discuss it.

"I am concerned about the impact of having divergent regimes in different parts of the UK," she said.

The Telegraph also has an editorial "Devolved Genders" backing Badenoch's view. "Unfortunately, the Sturgeon government is taking an increasingly cavalier attitude to such concerns, saying it is a matter for the UK to decide whether to accept the gender certifications issued in Scotland. All of which will merely add significantly to the confusion brought about by Ms Sturgeon's self-centred attitude to a shared social problem."

Is the issue in the Scottish Parliament about a failure to recognise there are biologically two sexes, or is it about the policies they are trying to push through?

You can argue chromosomes and gametes till the cow comes home, and you can easily win that debate, but will winning that argument automatically prevent men from being in women's prisons and spaces being segregated by sex? Maybe you think it will, but I don't.

The point is that it shouldn't need to be argued at all. I'm not going to trade 'arguments' about it any more, because having the discussion you are rehashing is what got us to here.

Now all that is left the me, and many others, is "No! That's batshit, you are wrong. No men in female spaces"

If you're going to take issue with what I said, please read it properly first. Just to help you, I said: "why would anyone listen to those people and dismiss people who say otherwise? This makes no sense to me."

Read it again, slowly, carefully. I asked why anyone would listen to one side and dismiss the other without listening. I said it makes no sense to me not to listen to both sides.

I've just read your post again @scratchedbymycat, and I think maybe you were agreeing with me, not accusing me of being one of the people who didn't listen to both sides.

I thought the 'you have to' was aimed at me, but maybe it was a 'general you'?

What about all those people who voted to remain but think there are 6 sexes and 100 genders. That must really blow your mind!

Yes, this bill does threaten public safety and the fact that Ash Regan, who was the minister for community safety resigned because of her justifiable concerns proves that. She could have done nothing & just waved it on but she took a stand & I’m grateful to her & Meghan Gallacher.

What about all those people who voted to remain but think there are 6 sexes and 100 genders. That must really blow your mind!

Not really. There will be hardcore remainers who will be pro-EU for emotional /heart reasons as well.

Having said that, I don't think I know any. Nor do I personally know any remainers who have bought into queer theory.

Nor do I personally know any remainers who have bought into queer theory.

I don't suppose you know Nicola Sturgeon personally, but as you're posting on a thread about the Scottish government I'm sure you're aware of the SNP position on both remain and TWAW. So you certainly know of remainers who have bought into queer theory.

See also: Plaid Cymru, the LibDems and much of the Labour Party.

I'm confused by the Scottish GRR drama. I understand the need to bring people along with you, but isn't the framing here a bit off? You can't "reform" something by keeping it the same.

The RA 2004 is the self-ID act, and has been from inception. See Robert Wintemute's recent <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2022.12.03-214321/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/02/scottish-parliament-should-leave-gender-recognition-act/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">piece in the Telegraph:

"In 2004, the UK Parliament passed (for Scotland and the rest of the UK) a very generous Gender Recognition Act, the first in the world (at the national level) to allow a change of legal sex without any physical changes to the transgender person’s body."

In Scotland, as in England, men can already self-ID into women's spaces without even bothering with the administrative procedures in the GRA. The examples covered by MSM are notorious - HMP Wakefield & Bronzefield, Edinburgh Rape Crisis etc.

GRA administrative procedures already enable men who want to hide their criminal past, eg. to work with children, to do so by availing of a fake birth certificate with the wrong sex.

So, in practice, the Scottish reforms are a marketing campaign to more dodgy men to hide their past. GRR also targets children as a growth market for "legal gender," the better to undermine sex in law and government, and push them towards profitable medicalisation.

But isn't the underlying problem that we have on the rolls an act that not only provides for fake birth certificates with the wrong sex on them, but systematically undermines the legal recognition of sex?

I don't understand why all women's groups aren't clamouring to get rid of the GRA. There are far better ways to protect the genuine human rights of those who believe in transgenderism - which doesn't seem to be what the GRA was about.

'I don't understand why all women's groups aren't clamouring to get rid of the GRA.'

We probably should be, as its original purpose is no longer necessary now 'gay marriage' is legal. The GRA in 2004 was perhaps the start of the Labour Party's attack on women's and children's rights, although it was dressed up to be something entirely different and basically went under the radar at the time.

Asking to repeal it, would lead to accusations of trying to erase transpeople etc etc, just like we are allegedly trying to erase them just by saying we actually believe in biology and that sex is immutable.

Fair enough @Justtoshare

"The GRA in 2004 was perhaps the start of the Labour Party's attack on women's and children's rights, although it was dressed up to be something entirely different and basically went under the radar at the time."

I hadn't thought of it that way, but its undeniably true that these gender laws are harming children - their bodies, their education, their instincts and ability to assert boundaries - and women.

"Asking to repeal it, would lead to accusations of trying to erase transpeople etc etc, just like we are allegedly trying to erase them just by saying we actually believe in biology and that sex is immutable."

That predictably DARVO slogan "erasing trans people" is a bit of a giveaway, isn't it? In reality, "gender" has been used to cease the political recognition of sex.

How on earth is it "erasing" people with those beliefs to recognise discrimination against them under Freedom of Belief, or sexual orientation if applicable, or disability (if their body modification addiction destroys their health)?

But isn't the underlying problem that we have on the rolls an act that not only provides for fake birth certificates with the wrong sex on them, but systematically undermines the legal recognition of sex?

I don't understand why all women's groups aren't clamouring to get rid of the GRA. There are far better ways to protect the genuine human rights of those who believe in transgenderism - which doesn't seem to be what the GRA was about.

Yes. It would be much much better to protect trans people from a position of reality. Every demand for trans rights seems to be a demand to falsify official documents or force / gaslight others into going along with stuff that they simply don’t believe. This is why public support for trans rights has taken a nose dive. It’s all so manipulative and people don’t take kindly to that.

The GRA was always bad law because it’s a fiction. Trouble is once these laws have been passed they are almost impossible to get rid of because anyone who attempts it is accused of being a Nazi.

Quite right @OldCrone - there's a whole party of remainders (and indeed, rejoiners) who have bought into queer theory. You can't shake a stick in my city without falling over them. And my own DH is a brexiter who I fear thinks I'm a nasty transphobe. In a Scotland (which is what we're discussing) where almost everyone voted to remain, I don't think you can draw any conclusions between stance on Europe =/= GC belief.

62% voted to remain. That's a majority, but it's not 'almost everyone'.

Sorry, link: www.statista.com/topics/3133/brexit-in-scotland/

Agree @Signalbox

It would be much much better to protect from discrimination & hate crime people who believe in transgenderism (there is no coherent category of TP) from a position of reality.

Yes, "trans rights" is a demand to falsify official documents or force / gaslight others into going along with transgenderist beliefs they don't hold.

"This is why public support for trans rights has taken a nose dive. It’s all so manipulative and people don’t take kindly to that." YES. I'd go so far as to say outright abusive to women & kids.

"The GRA was always bad law because it’s a fiction. Trouble is once these laws have been passed they are almost impossible to get rid of because anyone who attempts it is accused of being a Nazi."

To which the only response, surely, is "don't be so silly - who is it sterilising kids, again?"

We need safeguarding back. Gender laws stand in the way.

This is true. I do know of remainers who embrace queer theory. But, in my post that triggered this exchange, I actually said “I feel that my GC views are consistent with my politics on Brexit, Indy-ref, vaccinations and approach to Covid (randomly choosing recent events).” I could add other things like homeopathy, thinking we can talk to the dead, Trump, Q-Anon etc. All of these things are queues for me to weigh the speakers views on one thing against their susceptibility to get on board with things that defy logic. I’m just not going to give equal weight to their views as I would to someone who is consistently logical.

Nicola Sturgeon’s attachment to illogical gender-woo, is for me, consistent with her belief that an Independent Scotland will be economically powerful, easily re-join the EU, that our trade won’t be affected badly, that we can pursue a progressive immigration policy etc, all without a hard border between Scotland and England.

I can’t comment on Plaid Cymru. I don’t follow them at all.

Labour also have a scatty section. Believing that Corbyn would be PM was unicorn-land level fantasy to me. So I’m not surprised gender-woo exists there.

Lib Dems are an interesting bunch and a bit of an anomaly. I think some might be hamstrung by the fact their entire party's ethos is being Liberals and all that means. E.g. Weighing biological reality against a deep belief in ‘individual freedom’ etc. I can see how this can be a conflict.

FWIW, I am totally capable of putting emotion ahead of logic myself, but the difference is I try not to claim my emotions are logic. For example, I will never vote Tory again, no matter how the party changes in the future. I admit this every time I tell people this, but I don’t care. I used to occasionally vote Tory, but never ever again, ever, in my life. I can understand how (another example) Indy-ref is about heart, but I have little patience for the pretence (from some) that it's about head. My heart is definitely in the independence camp, and I desperately wish there was a more logical argument for it that wouldn't trash my children's future - especially post-Brexit.