Is anyone else watching the debate in the HOC live now?

[Sausagenbacon]

Gripping stuff. Unfortunately I've missed the 1st 30 minutes, and I'm hoping I can catch up.

LizzieSiddal · Today 17:35

Are they lying or stupid?

They're lying and they think we're stuipd.

predators not trans people

trans people can be predators. We know from the census results Transwomen were five times more likely to be in prison for sex offences at the time of the census than other men.

If I’d still been living in Scotland, he would be my MP. I thought the previous two incumbents (Thomson and McCaig) couldn’t have been succeeded by someone worse but I was obviously wrong.

Oh, that's a rather truncated link. Miriam Cates' speech. And L Russell Moyle.

I just watched this and I had a visceral reaction to LRM just now. Someone who hates women so much. It is fucking terrifying that such a crazed misogynist has a title and political power. I feel like women are doomed. MC is so brave to stand up to men like this. I need to take a few breaths.

Sturgeon wanted this fight at all costs.

Sturgeon and co saying that the bill doesn't confer a single additional right on transpeople.

It looks to me as if a GRC changes legal sex and therefore gives a TW the protected charactertistic of sex under the EA. That small number with GRCs have that now.

So the issue with the bill is that there is the opportunity for many more people to claim TW status, without necessarily being gender dysphoric, or without waiting longer than 3 months. How can anyone not perceive that this is an abuse loophole?

I just don't see, how they can not see. Am I missing anything? How are they THAT STUPID!

@HipTightOnions it says:
someone who is transgender with a GRC cannot be excluded on the basis of their legal sex, but can be excluded on the basis of gender reassignment if there is objective justification for doing so

In a rape crisis centre you can issue a blanket ban covering all (legally) male people, and ban (biological) males with a GRC on a case-by-case basis. The need for a case-by-case is already a problem, but will be made worse with the GRR. Hence the GRR having a detrimental impact on legislation which is reserved to Westminster.

Of course, the Scottish government could argue that a blanket ban on (biological) males with a GRC from women’s spaces would be acceptable, which (if accepted by UK gov) would be fine by me!

Heading into work tomorrow to try referring to my colleagues as rabid gammon 😂

I'll let you know how it goes.

I had it on my phone while I was working, and kept shouting at it when stupid claims were made! Thankfully, I had a meeting to go to, so had to turn off. My blood pressure thanked me!

So any other Labour MPs speak who were in touch with reality, like Rosie Duffield?

Because if not, how the hell are we supposed to take Starmer's opaque assurances to women seriously?

I think it is people being taken in by transactivist minimising language. Like ‘small administrative change’ - just changing a small letter ‘m’ to an ‘f’. It’s a teeny tiny thing, don’t get het up about it.

Transactivists use the same language for castration/sterilisation/lifelong medication - it’s ‘fixing a little problem’, ‘mending my small birth defect’.

Some people are dumb enough to be taken in by it, especially when it comes with a coy, knowing smile and a head tilt. “Yes, such a small thing, why would anyone get het up about it”.

@justasking111 the MPs have to go through lobbies, that's why they leave. Then the 'lock' and 'unlock'. Is that the doors to the lobbies? Anyway, Rishi won the day.

So sad that they're so conspicuous in their absence/anger/intensity of minimisation

No, I think she is fully immersed in this. It might be the first s35 but not the first bill stopped by the UK government - they tried to introduce a bill to incorporate UNCRC which also impacted on UK law but the UK government took it to the Supreme Court who blocked it. It has sat pretty much ignored since which shows how much of a priority it actually was.

Yes I am too. You'd think that as a consultant breast oncologist she'd know better. I've been to her meetings and she's great on another issues.

It doesn't so much confer additional rights (although the removal of any sort of an assessment does have that effect) as vastly widen the definition of who is transgender (or transsexual according to the 2004 GRA) to anyone and everyone who can be bothered to do it.

It changes the meaning of ‘sex’ in the equality act to potentially include everyone.

So much going on today I wish I'd seen it all in parliament! Thanks for the thread.

Russell-Moyle seems to very much hate women who don’t agree with him. He is simply an angry man.

Shelefttheweb · Today 18:05

trans people can be predators. We know from the census results Transwomen were five times more likely to be in prison for sex offences at the time of the census than other men.

It's a shame that nobody speaking out for Section 35 had those figures to hand. Can you imagine the meltdowns? And the papers the next day. It would have been excellent to have it on the front pages.

JoodyBlue · Today 18:16

Sturgeon and co saying that the bill doesn't confer a single additional right on transpeople.

Then why did she waste six years, huge amounts of debating time and millions of Quid on it? It's a pointless irrelevancy.

Unless you think she's not telling the truth? Surely not............

Sturgeon may well be a true believer, but if the Scottish Parliament didn’t take legal advice you have to ask why not? Would legal advice have highlighted these issues in advance and deprived the SNP of all this “nasty Westminster, we need to be free” rhetoric?

I am confused about the point about a GRC changing sex for legal purposes. I thought the point of a GRC is that it conferred the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act of 2010 whilst sex was the protected characteristic of people’s biological sex?

Sturgeon and co saying that the bill doesn't confer a single additional right on transpeople.

She right, it confers privileges not available to the rest of us.

Is that because of the recent case where Lady Haldane ruled that The meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, 'sex' is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex?