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

Yes indeed.

We women will have do do something bold (general strike? Refuse the use of pronouns in all cases, non cooperation in our facilities, taking back and guarding our facilities ?)

In terms of single sex services whatever decison the Scottish Government decides re GRC this will have to operate within the EA UK act. It is this act that allows for the provision of single sex service where deemed necessary.

Not sure if Scotland could resign from the UK EA and create its own.

The reality is that why we have so few genuinely women only services are not because of the existing GRA but because so many who could apply the EA excemption that allows single sex services have failed to do so. Not just women's groups in Scotland but throughout the UK. Neither have prisons, hospitals etc..

Or worse still, thanks to Stonewall brainwashing, many have attempted to present the EA as saying someone with a GRC is a woman for the purposes of single sex provision. Which they clearly aren't which is why there is an excemption. And this excemption actually proves the lie of a GRC because if it genuinely change someone's sex then you wouldn't need the excemption. ie the excemption proves that sex is the biological reality that is confirmed at birth.

Had there been, or there still could be, a campaign to make sure the excemption that allows singe sex services was used on every occasion it could be used, changing how someone obtains a GRC wouldn't be an issue, because for the purposes of the EA they are still the sex they are born.

(The Labour ammendment that was challenged in fact was to confirm that the provisions of the EA would not be changed by any new Scottish GRA. I dont know what happened to it after it was challenged for not being in time or something. Presumably this was Labour's attempt to show they did on one level support women.)

The section of the bill the Conservative MSP is seeking to remove was added by the Labour party at Stage 2. Section 15A states:

"For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act modifies the Equality Act 2010."

15:45 21 Dec www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-64051235

The EA isn't devolved so Holyrood can't touch it. GRA is devolved but goodness only knows why (some Denton's playbook thing I now wonder?)

Well yes it's obvious that some are not thinking at all, they really don't care about women and girls. Shame on them. This whole thing is a bloody disgrace.

Link doesn't work ' there is a problem' no shit sherlock
Does this mean they are finally finished?

Thanks for using the right words. Devolved. Hope that clarification makes what I wrote make more sense. It is much too late to think straight.

How can they possibly imagine sitting so late will allow for sensible discussion.

But I am dreading an attack on the EA or it becoming meaningless. A rape crisis centre in England is advertising a job for a Trans, Non-binary, Intersex and Gender Variant Facilitator and claim that the role is protected by the EA. I wonder which section of the EA outlined this protected characteristic they saw in their rainbow dream? www.sarsas.org.uk/opportunities/trans-non-binary-intersex-and-gender-variant-group-lead-facilitator/

Yes all over (probably not for the cleaners though I suppose)

I did wonder if the amendment on risk assessment would be enough but it seems Scotland is already really bad at risk assessment: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-for-rethink-on-gender-id-after-case-of-trans-rapist-jessica-winfield-dxh26g0ps.

Never mind.

I can't see how that is compliant with the EA.

Non binary is not transition so not gender reassignment?

Where would Intersex sit in the EA? Again it's not gender reassignment

And the other on - wtf?

But I’m guessing it’s fine unless someone challenges it legally, or is the EHRC supposed to do that? I’m on a steep learning curve wrt the methods & institutions of democracy!

In The Times:

Scotland heads for clash with Westminster over gender laws

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/26a896e4-8113-11ed-ab78-11b70ed96428?shareToken=9215c70ace5319fbbd5467ca4fb9cdf8

A Whitehall source said: “We have not experienced an act in the Scottish parliament that would have direct divergence effects undermining Westminster rules before in quite this way. Who knows where we will end up?”
^
Another government source said: “This will put us on a constitutional collision course with Holyrood.”^

Ends:

When the debate in Holyrood comes to an end, the bill is almost certain to face a legal challenge from critics who will do everything they can to frustrate its implementation.

It's a win win for sturgeon here.

If WM don't intervene she gets her bill through.

If WM do intervene ( which some believe she is counting on) then the SNP will hope to gain international sympathy for their independence dream.

If WM do intervene ( which some believe she is counting on) then the SNP will hope to gain international sympathy for their independence dream.

I agree she wants the battle with Westminster.

I do think she's picked the wrong bill though.

I think this will backfire on her.

It's bad law, it devastates womans rights, has fundamental impact on the EA throughout the UK.

The government (and I think some corners of Labour) are already beginning to wake-up. The EA is already being abused because it is poorly worded and they did not envisage becoming Trans would be a way to make yourself popular.

I think this is a piss poor politician with incompetent advisors finally coming unstuck.

I don't think in the longer term this will be a win for sturgeon or the SNP. For soft SNP voters, a central plank of their support is that the Scottish Parliament is benign at worst or positive at best. The worst accusation you could level would be ineffectual, and even then, that general uselessness is somehow not the Scottish government's fault, rather to do with how Westminster set it up and therefore the parliament is missing various powers that would make it more effective.

This however demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament can be destructive, same as any old Parliament. That the politicians can be incompetent and callous, just like the bastards in Westminster. That they can drive through bad legislation and be captured by vested interests, just the same as they accuse the UK government.

I think in the longer term this will destroy the belief that the SNP uniquely stands for Scotland and anything they do can only be viewed as in Scotland's best interests. They are demonstrating they are just like any other political party, and therefore the pass they have been given by the electorate for the past decade is coming to an end.

@Abccde
I think this is a piss poor politician with incompetent advisors finally coming unstuck.

Said it better and much more succinctly!

From the times reporting

A Whitehall source suggested that if a male Scottish prisoner in an English jail received a gender-recognition certificate three months after self-identifying as a woman, the prison could be in breach of the Equality Act for refusing their request to transfer to a female jail.

The source also gave the example of schools or colleges refusing to recognise Scottish-born 16 and 17-year-old pupils with certificates when requesting to use single-sex facilities. Employers who refuse to recognise the certificates also face being sued

That doesn't sound right. The whole point of the exemptions was to legitimately exclude. It's not illegal. The process by which you can exclude is completely unclear, yes, but it's not illegal.

I agree she wants the battle with Westminster.

I do think she's picked the wrong bill though.

I think this will backfire on her.

Yes. It's unpopular across the board. Big mistake to make it such an issue.

But the reporting needs tightening up. The actual impact needs spelling out. Letting 16 year olds change their birth certificates, refusing to make exceptions for violent rapists whilst simultaneously being unable to clarify how to exclude them under the EA, etc.

That's such bullshit!!!

Someone asked about 'filibustering' yesterday - I've seen absolutely none at all. There's not been time limits and nobody's raised anything that wasn't pertinent, necessary and important to discuss.

It's an utter joke to claim discussing the very real fucking issues is 'filibustering'. They're just trying to avoid all scrutiny.

In the long run, it's bloody stupid - the more holes in this legislation the easier it'll be to shoot it down.

So, fine, rush through a shitty piece of law. Make it easier for WM to take down. It's been so poorly put together and there's so many holes and unexplained gaps in it that it should take about ten minutes to dismantle.

And fwiw I think it's an utter disgrace to accuse those with issues relating to personal care, care responsibilities, young babies, etc, of 'complaining' about time limits. This is not emergency legislation. They can take all the time they need to discuss it in a civilised manner, with ministers that are adequately rested.

These are exactly the people who've fallen out of fashion in the glittery rush to tie rainbow laces and harp on about "inclusion".

I agree. And that Time article isn't the best - not their usual standard.