Scottish Parliament final debate on Gender Recognition Reform today

[ArabellaScott]

At some point after 2pm, in the Big Room (the Chamber).

www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/whats-on-and-watch-live/whats-on#wm

Will be interesting to see how the Amendments go down, if they are all struck down as the ScotGov wishes - www.holyrood.com/news/view,gender-recognition-reform-crunch-vote-after-shona-robison-warns-msps-over-amendments

'the Scottish Conservatives have warned that the debate could lead to a "travesty of democracy" because a 15 minute time limit for each proposal will "shut down" discussion.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64032916

Rachel Hamilton

116 - offense to seek to gain access to single sex services using a GRC

I think the new Bill and that CPS consultation would open up the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to be re-written in the "progressive" style whereby women can rape. My guess is the next move would be to remove the legal construction of rape which is with a penis. And change it to something more akin to sexual assault.

Inclusive innit?

RH - bad faith actors, right to access single sex spaces - changing room, etc

Talking about the EA exemptions.

RH says a 'bad faith' actor abusing GRC rights should be a criminal offense.

RH - talking about Reem Asalem's concerns, women self excluding from rape support services, etc.

Why have her comments been brushed to the side by the government?

We must take time to listen to those who have warned us in the chamber to the risks to women's spaces

Pauline McNeill

what constitutes 'living in the gender' - we need to be clear.

Guidance in 2004 act sets out what is necessary. But in that a panel signs off.

JG says you could show that the person hadn't been using the correct pronouns/appearance

PMcN - there's nothing in the bill so this isn't clear enough

Of course it's possible to reverse a GRC, there is provision to reverse it

The answer don't seem to square with legislation, which doesn't acutaly require any specifics, it's simply a declaration - how do you prove that to a court? [fraud]

Graham Simpson

Self ID - all you have to do is declare. I could declare 'I'm a woman'. You could ask to prove it. I don't have to. All I have to do is say 'I'm a woman' and apply.

No evidence required.

So if somebody is to challenge that, you've obtained by fraud, they'd have to prove I'm not a woman. I've not had to present any evidence.

[spelling it out for the hard of thinking here in very, very short words]

People are looking puzzled - I'm puzzled by the Bill!

GS - we're left with a Bill which requires no evidence - how can you have a fraud committed - how can you prove I've lied?

Ash Regan - evidence suggests risk of getting caught is an effective deterrent

GS - yes, where is the risk here? Very little. How can police be able to prove anything?

Brian Whittle - spoke to policeman recently, who said if trans person in toilet is challenged - one person is committing an offense - how do they tell the difference?

we're left with a Bill which requires no evidence - how can you have a fraud committed - how can you prove I've lied?

These are people elected to actually debate legislation. I really shouldn't be impressed that one of them managed to figure this out, but my expectations are so low at this point.

Cab Sec - Shona Robison -

Fraudulently obtaining a GRC - have updated wording - intro of an aggravator supplements other safeguards and prevents misuse - happy to support amendments that strengthen the bill

I don't support 116 (R Hamilton) - single sex services - false application already in Bill - fraudulently obtained GRC an offense -

Intervention Tess White - what safeguards are there to prevent fraudulently obtained GRC from accessing single sex spaces?

SR - Equality Act exemptions - anyone entereing a service for eg sex assault survivors - this could exclude transwomen - if a transwoman entered that space it would be an offense -
[Mridul are you listening?]

intervention - what does fraudulently applying amount to - How is it defined, proved?

SR - person of interest woudl be able to apply to Sherriff, who could look into whether person was living in acquired gender

To be fair Graham Simpson seems to really get it - he's one of my MSPs & his emails have been bang on.

Awareness of all this is so much higher, I’ve heard people talking about it who I’ve never heard mention it before and with this awareness seems to have come the greater negativity in the polls. I know only two people in favour, one ticks every cliche box and the other is coming from a really good place but has downed a lot of Judith Butler. Both would be the last people in earth to impose gender stereotypes on their own children and I don’t think they have an real awareness of what it’s like to be a kid in a household that does.

My DC are more comfortable ignoring for a quiet life but DC2 didn’t bat an eyelid when I asked if the non-binary kid coming for a sleepover was non-binary male or non-binary female, clearly understood why it was relevant. And DC1’s school trip next year might now have a question as to which dorm to place trans kids in if some have GRCs - that’ll be fun for the teachers. However, both kids currently only know of transboys and female non-binary kids who all seem to hang out with mainly girls for some unfathomable reason and I assume this will be a similar situation at most schools.

I wonder if there is likely to be a stop put on moving prisoners to a women’s prison without a GRC as I read somewhere that around half had stated a trans identity for the first time while in prison with a question therefore as to whether for some this was a bid to get into a different prison environment. If it’s so easy to get a GRC then perhaps it will be read as a sign that unless the claimant actually applies then it is not a genuine wish and knowing you were going to be stuck with an GRC could put some people off doing it for that reason. Unless they think it doesn’t matter because they already have a prison record of course. Has there been any suggestion of what the penalty would be likely to be for a fraudulent claim?

JG - from a legal point of view these notes are self explanatory -

1. rather something in the bill than nothing [false/fraud, I think] he's got legal advice, he thinks they are competent. We often don't know until tested in court [waffles about specifivity]
2. If you don't agree, don't vote.
3. Conflation of this with self ID [wtf he is on about IDK]

Liam Kerr - we are talking about fraud. Proving it requires mens rea, intention - what I'm struggling with is what evidence could be brought that could prove that intention?

JG - yeah, valid point.

JG - that's for a court to decide. Difficult to see as it is so rarely contested since 2004. It's already an offense to make a false stat declaration.

Scenario where someone made a dec and it could be proven demonstrably had not been living in acquired gender, there are clearly manifest ways one can do that [what?! spell them fucking out!!!]

Oh, here we go:

phsyical evidence of not using pronouns
evidence from those who know offender

Jeremy Balfour - in a criminal trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Still struggling to follow what evidence can the CRown bring that would reach that test of BRD?

Real danger we are making a law that can never be enforced

JGreene - I have every faith in the judiciary to make that decision based on evidence provided. Could be related to domestic abuse legislation, aggravating factors, etc.

All of this would be tested in courts. Underlying principle is - to improve scenario that there is a greater deterrent, safeguards.

SR - person of interest woudl be able to apply to Sherriff, who could look into whether person was living in acquired gender

Which means... bugger all.

pronouns, Errol! Pronouns!

If nobody uses preferred pronouns for validation , then does it prove that they haven’t lived in acquired gender/ transitioned/ changed sex? If so let’s all refuse to do it. Absolute nonsense, as those opposed are pointing out.
how was the rally today?

They don’t want to say what living in the acquired gender means because it lays open how it's all based on stereotypes.

They will inevitably have to say a woman has to dress like a woman, or act like a woman, or speak like a woman, and they realise how bad that sounds.

The rally looks fairly big, maybe 500?

Good to know BlackforestCake

Shauny Boy has Patrick Harvie and Sturgeon down to a fine art