Scottish GRR Bill - SNP asks for amendment for alleged rapists

[ArabellaScott]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ban-alleged-rapists-changing-gender-during-trial-snp-msp-michelle-thomson-urges-sturgeon-vsprw6zxb

'Michelle Thomson risks angering party leaders by working jointly on an amendment with Russell Findlay, the Tory community safety spokesman, to avoid a repeat of recent cases where offenders were able to self-identify as women after committing serious crimes.'

I've so much admiration for anyone in the SNP (or Labour) who stands up for women on this issue. Thank you, Michelle Thomson.

Oh dear, re-education camp for her, starting first thing tomorrow.

Hats off to her. Curious about the reaction...

Well, that's going to be interesting...!

Whilst this amendment is a step in the right direction it doesn't go far enough. What about after they are convicted and are put in a woman's jail or on release with a new name and no link to their old identity even though an enhanced barring disclosure unless they choose to tell the barring service themselves.
Whilst I do appreciate and applaud the bravery that even proposing this ammendment will have taken its far to little far to late

Well there's about a zero chance of TRA Nicola Sturgeon letting this one through is there.

Can it wait until after 5pm on Friday? I'm sure that the extensive peer-reviewed research data that's coming out would be sooo helpful in exactly this sort of scenario 😐

I think this sounds like a good idea and I admire Michelle Thomson for making the proposal but the wording in the times article makes it sound like accused sex offenders will only be prevented from applying for a GRC during the course of legal proceedings against them. What happens if they are convicted?

Is this the way it will have to happen? That provisions are made one by one to change the act?

Either way, this does shine sunlight that not all is how Nicola Sturgeon has presented it to the public.

This amendment should encourage more to come hopefully. Sadly maybe after passing.

But this amendment and Beira, the defector MPs, it is all adding to the discussion. That which Nicola didn’t want.

I agree that it's too little, too late.

What it IS doing is allowing for the possibility that this could happen.

It's breaking the golden rule - that anyone with a trans identity can do no wrong.

So far, Shona Robison and Nicola Sturgeon and Shirley-Ann Somerville have been united in insisting that

'transwomen are not a threat, violent men are a threat'.

This amendment and others like it allow people to join the dots.

To show that yes, transwomen can - like any other male - be violent, can be a threat, can cause issues.

It's the very start of debate, tbh.

Gender Identity proponents will not stand for that.

If you believe everyone has a gender identity (I don't), and that gender identity means you are actually the opposite sex to your body (I'm still not sure which bit of you is separate from your body), it doesn't matter if you are violent, dangerous or evil - the "gender" of your "female gender identity" still overrides the sex of your male body.

You won't think it is acceptable to treat such a person per the male rules ie male prison just because "she"has committed rape. They will also point to Rose West and Myra Hindley as examples of women who committed evil and were "still seen as and treated as women" therefore men who say they are women are also men.

Incoherent? Yes. Nonsense? Absolutely. But this is what we're dealing with

Begs the question, if someone is convicted of rape, should they be allowed a GRC?

which then leads to why should any male have a GRC?

this is a very good start at dismantling the whole madness of gender ideology.

It does at least bring more sunlight to the issue for people who haven't been paying much attention. It points to the fact of most transwomen retaining their penises, for example, which not everyone knows.

And the outrage about Beira's place highlights how so much of this movement has been about validation, not safety.

Intelligent people will start to see this.

She wouldn’t have done this unilaterally, will have been sanctioned to allow Saint Nicola to look benevolent when they give a tiny amount to make it look like they have debated and listened. Takes the heat of the rest of the glaring elephant in the Bill.

Raping is, by definition, a male activity. They can't claim to be 'living as a woman' while doing something that only men do.

Begs the question, if someone is convicted of rape, should they be allowed a GRC?

If someone is convicted of rape, should they be allowed to convert to Catholicism? (Or any other religion.)

If you allow convicted criminals faith-based conversion, what justification is there to forbid them any faith-based conversion?

Raping is, by definition, a male activity. They can't claim to be 'living as a woman' while doing something that only men do.

Yet anything women do is, by definition, living as a woman. So a trans identified person would claim that anything they do is living as their identity.

The whole business is illogical, anti-social, harmful and deeply offensive.

If you allow convicted criminals faith-based conversion, what justification is there to forbid them any faith-based conversion?

A GRC is nothing to do with a faith-based conversion. It's a legal document.

Yes, but it is based purely on a belief. The belief in a gendered 'soul'. In that way it is no different to any other faith- or belief-based conversion. The consequence, however, is not merely a baptismal certificate, but a powerful and dangerous legal fiction.

That'll be why NS is rushing it through - to avoid material unhelpful to her.