Leader in the Times today on SNP Gender ID fiasco

[SpringCalling]

SNP trans fiasco highlights the dangers of groupthink

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8312c010-a4c4-11ed-9d5c-69bd3c5b98b3?shareToken=29e3dddd50def2ae111165514d88448b

hopefully share token works. Good article, but spot the glaring incorrect phrase in there ...!

That is an excellent piece, thank you for sharing. Hallelujah for some clear common sense finally being stated by journalists:-

"Yet, important though feelings are, they are not more important than rights. Women have the right to safety, and biological males do not have the right to enter women-only spaces. It really is no more complicated than that."

Spotted it! I won't quote it - don't want to spoil the 'Where's Wally's moment for anyone else!

I think this article has a generally good perspective but is written by someone who is fairly new to the issue!

Thx OP. Good that the article specifically called out the BBC, and Evan Davis, by name. We women (and specifically jkr) need an apology.

It only scratches the surface, but it's a good starter article. Well done The Times

Thank you for sharing x Though I have discovered that a man minus his genitalia is a woman.

Yes clumsy wording there, as if castrati or eunuchs, say, are actually female.

We have to still fight for clarity of language. Transition to the opposite sex is not possible.

good to see.

i know this has already been quoted but i'm going to do it again as this would not have been in the media this time last year

Yet, important though feelings are, they are not more important than rights. Women have the right to safety, and biological males do not have the right to enter women-only spaces. It really is no more complicated than that.

Good to see

Thanks for the share. I wonder if the writer has since looked and thought… well, that is not quite as I thought it would sound when I wrote it.

It’s good. Gets on my wick “former man”, but over all it’s good.

They mention that half identify as ‘trans’ after their arrest. I remember that key trans activist Paris Lees had such an epiphany serving time in a young offenders institute for violent robbery. I wonder how that would leave things.

don't want to spoil the 'Where's Wally's moment for anyone else!

oops sorry. I should rtft first

Good article - except for the 'Wally'!

Excellent (apart from the Wally part!), thanks for the share.

Who's the author I couldn't see a name anywhere?

Great stuff.

I especially liked the term 'self-censoring group think' closely followed by the name Evan Davies.

Yet, important though feelings are, they are not more important than rights. Women have the right to safety, and biological males do not have the right to enter women-only spaces. It really is no more complicated than that.

The best of several good quotes in there.

The journalist hasn't got quite to the end of the line of thought though, and is still writing as if hopeful that there's a 'true' group and a 'not true' group. Because it would be nicer that way. But they can't and the writer knows it as is aware and pointing out Sturgeon's incoherence on this.

It is like any group of males. There will be excellent ones, there will be untrustworthy ones and there will be bloody dangerous ones, and only a very few will have a conviction to help anyone else be certain. We don't try to say violently criminal or sex offending men aren't men, that they cease to be men and become that third sex 'rapist' that Sturgeon seems to have found.

There is no way to tell as safe man from a dangerous man and this is the reason for single sex spaces for women. Among - what is constantly seen as so unimportant it isn't mentionable - basic privacy, dignity and comfort for women to not undress or be vulnerable in front of a man. And the safe and trustworthy ones would not force women's boundaries and comfort by entering single sex spaces any more than they would force women's boundaries and commit an assault.

@nilsmousehammer I cant see a name for the writer, am I being daft? I wonder why they've left it out?

Leader columns in newspapers are generally unsigned.

I think that all the points I'd cleverly come up with have already been covered. It's not a bad article. I did spot the following:

Passing the gender bill, the Scottish government dismissed concerns that “bad actors” might take advantage of the legal relaxation as “not valid”.

That's a very mild interpretation of what actually happened, in fact, the supporters were very aggressive and abusive, with constant howls of "Transphobic" to anyone brave enough to point out that this exact case would happen.

Yep.

Future students of politics will write essays on trans activists’ capture of entire political parties, and the subsequent abuses of women, as an example of what happens when you suppress democracy.

If politicians had done their job and actually listened to their constituents, and allowed free votes instead of tactical stich-ups, things would never have got to this stage.

It reminds me so much of when Gordon Brown dismissed concerns about immigration as “bigoted”. Premiership didn’t last long, did it, Gordon, because ignored issues do not evaporate. If Gordon Brown had actually listened, the country might have avoided Brexit.

The Bryson case highlighted the simple fact that a man can choose to define himself as a trans woman, but they are not biologically female — and in certain circumstances they may pose a danger to women. The SNP’s problem is that once this has been noted in the context of prisons, it is unavoidable everywhere else. The disregard for women’s rights embedded in the bill has been laid bare.

Almost lost in the debate are transgender and transsexual people, who will no doubt be pained by headlines associating identity changes with rape and violence against women. They must be treated with as much dignity as the undignified wrestle between Holyrood and Westminster allows. Yet, important though feelings are, they are not more important than rights. Women have the right to safety, and biological males do not have the right to enter women-only spaces. It really is no more complicated than that.

Bugger deleted my actual comment. And I'm not rewriting it.

Good article

Dignity is a tricky word isn't it?

It's often used as a catch-all in this context for avoiding hurty feelings, or what is assumed (or asserted by a small, very vocal group) will cause hurty feelings.

But only in the one side. When women try to introduce the concept of "dignity" we're told we're bigots and have to rely on safety, which we're then told is calling all transpeople abusers...and on it goes.