Secretary of State for Scotland looking at using Westminster powers to overule gender recognition bill

[fromorbit]

Alister Jack has said he is willing to consider blocking the Gender Recognition Reform Bill under Section 35 of the Scotland Act.
twitter.com/JournoStephen

Detailed Review of the Legal case that powers that could be used:
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/12/21/michael-foran-sex-gender-and-the-scotland-act/

In short it seems there are potential good grounds to use Section 35 in this case due to contradictions in the legislation. [Lots of speculation that this was this Sturgeon's aim all along create legislation so bad it would be overturned and increase support for Indy? However I think this is just a case of pure ideology combined with incompetence.]

Writing into your MP especially if they are a Tory would be a good move at this point.

Sounds like a good way to go. I'll try the same approach, but might wait until after Christmas so it doesn't get buried in his inbox. (My MP is a Tory, but not a bad one as they go. We haven't often seen eye to eye on issues in the past, but we happen to share a birthday and have exchanged civil greetings despite our differences.)

😂

I'm no longer surprised:

"Sir Keir Starmer remained silent about the bill, and declined to comment on whether he would back the use of Section 35 or not.

“Does he not have a view on women's rights or are they seen as much less important than all the other issues the Leader is happy to comment on?” one Labour source said."

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/22/scotland-passes-gender-reform-bill-snp-nicola-sturgeon/

ie why aren't health services and prisons using the single sex exemption?

Yes, single-sex should be the default, with any move away from it having to be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate goal.

Usually it is because funding they receive from say the devolved 'Scottish Administration' (lol) stipulates that they have to be 'trans-inclusive'.
It is very corrupt and insidious. Most voters did not realise this was happening 'under the radar'.

There is a document called Denton's document www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

gendercriticalwoman.blog/2020/07/23/that-dentons-document/

Trans ideology was put into place secretly by piggybacking parasitically onto other movements (e.g. LGB see Stonewall, same-sex marriage in Ireland). It's proponents were encouraged to join organisations as board level and in positions of authority to infiltrate and influence.

It's slogan was 'No debate' and we were all supposed to think 'oh of course 'people are trans, get over it.' Of course 'No Debate.'
BBC, Channel 4 and the Guardian do not report it in any critical way, so it goes under the radar for many people.

Stonewall turned from an LGB org to a 'trans' org in 2015, but until very recently was still seen as the leading LGB organisation in the UK.

Trans groups have been lobbying parliaments for the last few years.

It's funded by some US billionaires, some trans some not, who own pharmaceutical companies and have a vested interest in 'transing' children and young people as there is so much money to be made from it.

www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-billionaires-behind-the-lgbt-movement

It's all really sinister.

^^ oh and it's been rinse and repeat worldwide.

Go out and buy four stamps. Write to your mp, then cc Three other organizations outside Scotland that are trustworthy. Say a newspaper, a celebrity like JK Rowling, Sharon Davis, state why you're afraid to put down your name because of repercussions, whatever you're afraid of consequences wise.

I'm really not up on your internal political problems, so can't be of much help

Also from Resister’s Telegraph article:

”Scottish Labour Constitution spokesperson Sarah Boyack MSP said talk of triggering Section 35 was an “unwelcome intervention from a Secretary of State who seems to be considering riding roughshod over devolution.”

That will be the same Sarah Boyack who flat out refused to meet me as a constituent to discuss my concerns.

A GRC can change documents but does not count for the E Act where sex is the protected characteristic and a single sex space can exclude all males, including those with a GRC.

Isn't the problem with this - how? We could be in the ridiculous situation where everyone who sees a particular nurse knows they're male, but officially nobody is allowed to know it or disclose it to anybody else. In that situation, how is this person's employer able to offer a patient same sex care?

Is there a way to contact/get involved if not on Twitter or Facebook? It all seems to require social media!

I’m so sorry for Scottish women and girls tonight. And I really hope Westminster steps in to protect women and girls, because it is very obvious the Scottish Parliament doesn’t give a stuff.

Sorry my post was supposed to quote a post about joining WRN

Yes as I said buy a stamp and post. Social media is so transient

@SirChenjins

A few suggestions - no idea if any of these will work!

1.Gay people weren't demanding to be seen as something they are not. The issue here isn't whether trans people should be protected from discrimination and harrassment (no one disagrees with that) - it's how far other people should be required to pretend something that is untrue is actually true.

2.The law does protect those with a genuine conviction that gay marriage is wrong - which is why you can't have a same sex marriage in a Catholic Church, for instance. No such concessions are proposed by trans campaigners - who notoriously don't even think rape centers are allowed to be female only.

You could try pointing out the many logical contradictions in gender identity theory - I actually think we don't do this enough! My own line is "I don't accept GIT because I think it's illogical and even those who say they believe it actually don't - their behaviour and life choices don't match their professed beliefs."

a. If being a "woman" or "man"is nothing to do with being female or male why do trans people need to change their bodies to look more male or female? "Being a woman has nothing to do with being female but in order to be a woman I must look like a female" makes no sense.

b. Words don't exist in a vaccuum - if people say they are a "man" they must have an idea in their head of what a "man" is? What is that other than a male person? Has anyone identified as a "pookahen" or a "tehdyet"? Why not?

c. If you can't define "man" or "woman" these words become essentially meaningless yet trans people claim that it's literally life or death for them to be seen as a "man" or "woman"? How can words be simultaneously absolutely meaningless and completely meaningful?

d. If all the female people in the world suddenly identified as "Ponkens" would it be legitimate to exclude women from Ponken-only sports and services? If not, why not? Do you think that trans women would suddenly start identifying as "ponkens" too?

e. And if you have no answer to these questions then how can you claim someone (your loving mother) is "bigoted" for not accepting gender identity theory? Maybe your loving mother doesn't believe it because she just doesn't think it makes sense!

Good luck!

Kemi Badenoch’s statement:
twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1606053418182709250

“The Scottish government has not addressed the full implications of their bill...the UK government is now looking at provisions that can prompt reconsideration and allow MSPs to address these issues"

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23209852.gender-recognition-reforms-three-day-slog-help-trans-people/#comments-anchor

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/gender-reform-bill-passed-msps-28788091

It's not a gamble at all. It's not something that has to happen - that's my point. WM can pause self-id without turning it into a wider power grab.
It all depends what actually matters to WM - taking a stance against self-id and the TRA/MRA agenda or grabbing back devolved powers? Because yy it would be very welcome if they'd take a stance against self-id but let's see them make it consistent policy to stand against the TRA/MRA agenda. Otherwise, it all smacks of opportunism rather than principle.

@SirChenjins

I'd focus on the disconnect between accepting that trans people exist and should be free to live as they want, which is absolutely the same as was rightfully demanded by gay people, and the extreme demand that trans people, trans women in particular, should be allowed to dictate to female people what it is to be a women, and to have female people's own life experiences dismissed.

I'd remind them that unlike them, you actually lived through that period of time and remember how gay people were portrayed in the media and by comparison trans people today are far more accepted and listened to.

I'd share my memories of the movement for gay civil partnerships and then gay marriage, and how this was treated as a significant change for society so even though most people supported it, before it came into law there was consultation and working out what practicalities needed to change (things like pension rules, insurance, whether religions could opt out and so on) to make sure everything was going to work, and I'd contrast that with the insistence that redefining women as a mixed sex group, and with it the opening up of all female spaces to trans identifying males and the insistence that female people should be just as comfortable in vulnerable situations with an intact trans woman as they would with another female, should happen with no debate, no reworking of single sex provisions to accomodate female safety and dignity, and no consideration of how that impacts female people.

I'd point out that there being many ways to support trans people that do not involve the wholesale undefining of womanhood, and ask them why it's not enough for trans women inclusive spaces and places to exist alongside female-only provisions, but that female-only places should not exist at all.

I wonder if it will be more difficult to travel to some countries on holiday with the new passports declaration female

Apparently some of the newer scanners are "transphobic" /expect physical attributes consistent with the sex of the human

Yes, I think NS has over-played her hand.

There won't be many unionists who will convert to the pro-Independence parties, as a result of this vote, so who is going to be upset by the UK Government blocking the bill, other than people who would never have voted Tory anyway?

OTOH there are a lot of pro-Indy women who will now feel unable to support NS, and who might be persuaded to vote Tory or at least to abstain from backing Tory opponents.

The (UK) Tories have 100% grasped the significance of self-ID as a wedge issue. You saw this in their leadership contest in the summer. From their PoV, the more fuss and outrage in the Scottish parliament, the better - it will just ram home the point that the Tories are on the side of women, and the SNP/Greens/Labour aren't.

With a few honourable exceptions, I think this is pure cynicism by the Tories - they don't give a toss about women's rights either. But even a lot of voters who understand that may well hold their noses and vote Tory/abstain, to protect women's rights.

Sorry cant find the post about talking to younger people who say the trans rights campaign is the same as Section 28 etc..

At no time did any of the campaign for gay rights impinge on the rights of any other groups. Lesbian and gay activists did not make demands on any other group to believe what they thought. They just asked for acceptance and the right to live their live without discrimination.

T

The SNP would appear to have more sane MSPs than Scottish Labour. Admittedly 7 isn't very many, but it's a damned sight more than 0.

The GRA was enacted in 2004 by the Blair government.