And now Sunak is doubling down on the transphobia, because for some reason all the transphobes (and Starmer is included in this) care about is penises, apparently failing to consider that plenty of trans women no longer have penises anyway.
Perhaps we need to invent an entirely new categorisation, namely “people with penises” and “people without penises”, and assign things like dressing rooms and toilets accordingly.
Basically it would be regularising the position that gender is entirely separate from biological sex, thus at a stroke making gender identification (or reidentification) much easier while also allowing those who want (for whatever reason) to know whether other people in the same space as them have penises or not to do so.
How would it make being trans easier? It wouldn't improve access to healthcare or a GRC. I don't know what else you mean by 'gender identification'.
Aside from the fact that everyone is already entitled to use the toilet of their choice anyway, it's nobody else's business what anyone else's genitalia looks like. Would you install people to inspect people's genitalia before entering a changing room or toilet? What happens when someone has a vaginoplasty or phalloplasty?
The actual solution is to let trans people live their lives and pee in peace, not encourage some unhinged people to become genital monitors.
KarlLB Nothing in the law in question stops an under-16 from identifying as transgender. Many such already do, both sides of the border.
It is about the requirements for a GRC, not about the right to identify ones gender.
Pure sophistry.
How is it sophistry when it's literally the case that under-16s can and do live their lives as transgender children, just without a GRC? Those with supportive parents can already get a name changed by deed poll for instance, and be treated with puberty blockers. How are they less trans because they don't have a GRC?
Just because you don't understand what is involved in having a GRC doesn't mean that Karl is incorrect. The GRR is solely about making it easier to get a GRC, and doesn't change what a GRC does. At the moment in England and Wales for instance, a trans 16yo has the right to marry with parental permission but not the right to have the correct gender on their marriage certificate or be referred to as the right gender during the ceremony (marriage vows in England and Wales must specifically refer to husbands and/or wives* and it is based on your birth certificate - even though you can change the sex marker on your passport without a GRC, registrars will refuse to marry you as the right gender without a GRC).
*the only exception is for Quaker wedding ceremonies for historical reasons, since they don't have any set marriage vows - Quaker elders along with Jewish rabbis are entitled to act as registrars as Anglican priests are in England and Wales
Pomona: Just because you don't understand what is involved in having a GRC doesn't mean that Karl is incorrect.
It's sophistry because the issue is not about technicalities, but whether there should be equality of rights unabridged by age. Why should an under 16-year old trans be denied the emancipation accorded to a 16-year old?
KarlLB Nothing in the law in question stops an under-16 from identifying as transgender. Many such already do, both sides of the border.
It is about the requirements for a GRC, not about the right to identify ones gender.
Pomona: Just because you don't understand what is involved in having a GRC doesn't mean that Karl is incorrect.
It's sophistry because the issue is not about technicalities, but whether there should be equality of rights unabridged by age. Why should an under 16-year old trans be denied the emancipation accorded to a 16-year old?
I mean referring to a person as 'a trans' isn't exactly helping your case.
KarlLB, you remind me of those who in an effort to lessen the enormity of the crime disagree that the Germans killed 6 million Jews, claiming it was only 5 million. You strain at the gnat to avoid confronting the camel.
Unreserved apologies. Doublethink. I certainly did not intend to suggest KarlLB was a fascist, but that he was ignoring the essential question behind a pedantry.
But it's not pedantry or pointing out mere technicalities to clarify what a GRC is actually for, because that is the heart of the issue. What you have arbitrarily decided is an important question here isn't actually important - they have to choose an age somehow, and lining it up with the age of consent seems as good a boundary as any, plus given that it's quite common for Scottish students to be 17 when starting uni it means a trans student can get their GRC paperwork sorted in plenty of time for starting uni.
A huge part of this entire moral panic is intentional public misinformation about what a GRC does and what things it affects. It's not pedantry when this is the basis upon which Westminster seem to be building their potentially disastrous reforms for legal gender recognition. And it's also frankly not your place as a cis person to decide what the so-called 'essential question' is.
Pomona:-they have to choose an age somehow, and lining it up with the age of consent seems as good a boundary as any
Why do they have to choose an age? I thought the argument was that individuals were aware of their gender from a much earlier age? Why should an individual's human rights in this matter be delayed for so long?
Pomona: Sorry but pointing out the way in which you insist on dehumanising trans people is not avoiding the issue.
I find that remark offensive and unworthy of a shipmate. Once again you accuse me of adopting positions for which you are unable to offer evidence.
Pomona: And it's also frankly not your place as a cis person to decide what the so-called 'essential question' is.
Excuse me, you are making all sorts of assumptions about me of which you have no knowledge. I make no such assumption about your gender identity etc., etc.. Nor do I think its your place to determined what opinions I might express on the ship within the bounds of a courtesy you seek to deny me on the grounds of my presumed gender.
@Pomona@Kwesi I remind you of commandments 3 & 4 - this is not appropriate to Epiphanies. @Kwesi , if further hosting intervention is required for you in Epiphanies your posting privileges for this forum will be suspended for a minimum of six weeks.
And now Sunak is doubling down on the transphobia, because for some reason all the transphobes (and Starmer is included in this)...
I think Starmer is a very serious problem for us in Scotland.
I wrote to all my MSPs about GRR (we have list MSPs from a variety of parties besides my SNP constituency MSP)
I got the best responses from my Green and SNP representatives. I wasn't keen on the way Scottish Labour framed their response as I thought it bought in far too much to certain narratives in the press and I said so, but nevertheless my two Labour MSPs pledged and did vote for GRR. In fact Labour did better than the SNP in terms of the vote, only being surpassed by the Lib Dems and Greens in terms of voting for the bill. They had only two MSPs vote against. So I gave them credit for that. And then Starmer...
Since he interfered and refused to oppose the Section 35 order the party has rowed back from its support and followed his line. They put out a statement sacrificing the defence of trans people to point-scoring plus two anti-trans MSPs (including one who broke the whip) have just been put on their new front bench.
Labour were the architects of Scottish devolution and meant to be rock solid on it and this was legislation they supported and voted for overwhelmingly. And yet Starmer has betrayed both trans people and devolution. Shocking and unexpected stuff from the party of Donald Dewar which bravely faced down 'Keep the Clause' in the early years of the Scottish parliament and held its nerve against the anti-gay tabloid moral panic, public opposition whipped up by that, the religious conservatives and the bigoted millionaire who funded the campaign.
It's good to see the people in Scottish Labour who haven't knuckled under to this like Monica Lennon, Mercedes Villalba and Richard Leonard but it's very bad news to see Scotland's major non right-wing opposition party refusing to defend devolution and throwing a scapegoated minority under the bus. And I'm afraid it has all come about since Starmer stuck his oar in.
The reason banging on about toilets is a problem in discussions of this kind, is the not very hidden subtext is that in singlesex spaces transwomen are likely to rape ciswomen. There is no evidence for this particular prejudice and it is not dissimilar to the homosexuals are likely to be peadophiles trope. Therefore you need a spectacularly good reason to bring this up, rather than “oh and another thing”.
The legislation under discussion here, whether enacted or not, does not change who may legally use what toilet in any part of the UK - so a spectacularly good reason appears to be absent and we do not expect shipmates to continue discussing toilets on this thread.
/Admin Clarification
@Marvin the Martian I am aware that you have explained how important definitional issues are to you, and agreed with the Epiphanies hosting team that you could start a definitions analysis thread on this forum after the SNP leadership election finished. Please feel free to start that thread with a suitable OP, but definitional discussion should stay on that thread and not continue on this one.
On toilets, Mrs T mentioned to me that she would think women are more threatened by a proposal to make people use toilets that match their sex assigned at birth than allowing people to use the facilities that match their gender identity. If as a result trans men are required to use the ladies', any would-be cis male predator merely needs to claim to be a trans man to gain access. Because no-one is actually going to be checking plumbing or checking a medical history.
(ETA hidden text, see admin posts on this thread, DT, Admin)
@Kwesi nobody has suggested that there should be 'emancipation unabridged from age' - that's something you alone have suggested. Because as others have pointed out, it misunderstands what a GRC does and gives it more legal power than it actually has. A GRC is not emancipation in any meaningful way, unless you are using the term in a different way to the legal definition. But also at least in England, afaik 16 is the legal age at which emancipation can happen anyway - when I was homeless at 17 and in B&B accommodation there were also 16yos in B&B accommodation. However this was before the school leaving age was raised so it may be different now.
I am honestly feeling so uncomfortable with the insistent badgering on this really not actually very important part of the legislation - on a day that is painful enough for trans people - when the rhetoric in Scotland and now from Westminster has always been about single-sex provision and trans people and allies attempting to get the message across that actually single-sex provision has always been available with GRCs existing and the function of a GRC doesn't change at all here. The issue of getting GRCs for under-16s is not something trans people are actually invested in right now given that potentially GRCs might be functionally scrapped altogether (the whole point of a GRC is that your previous legal sex is protected information that is not generally accessible*, which is then not a thing if you have separate legal sex and legal gender).
*single-sex provision such as women's shelters have *always* been able to be exempt from this
On toilets, Mrs T mentioned to me that she would think women are more threatened by a proposal to make people use toilets that match their sex assigned at birth than allowing people to use the facilities that match their gender identity. If as a result trans men are required to use the ladies', any would-be cis male predator merely needs to claim to be a trans man to gain access. Because no-one is actually going to be checking plumbing or checking a medical history.
I am going to assume you crossposted with my admin post.
@Doublethink apologies for typing as you were typing.
@KarlLB I've seen this idea come up before and while I get the idea behind it, to me it still comes across a bit too much as suggesting that cis men would bother disguising themselves to attack women when they clearly don't need to even when that's already illegal. Also it should be noted that trans men do also experience violence when visibly masculine and using women's toilets, both from women in the toilets and men seeking to protect women. In the US a trans man who worked at a campground was forced by his employers to use the women's facilities and ended up being seriously assaulted as a result. I'm not sure how that is supposed to be any kind of victory for the people pushing this kind of thing.
(ETA hidden text, see admin posts on this thread, DT, Admin)
.The issue of getting GRCs for under-16s is not something trans people are actually invested in right now given that potentially GRCs might be functionally scrapped altogether (the whole point of a GRC is that your previous legal sex is protected information that is not generally accessible*, which is then not a thing if you have separate legal sex and legal gender)
Do we need a new thread @Pomona to look at what trans people and non binary people actually want to see from allies right now and to focus on what's happening at Westminster?
Doublethink: @ Marvin the Martian, I am aware that you have explained how important definitional issues are to you, and agreed with the Epiphanies hosting team that you could start a definitions analysis thread on this forum after the SNP leadership election finished. Please feel free to start that thread with a suitable OP, but definitional discussion should stay on that thread and not continue on this one.
I hope, Marvin the Martian, you will accept this gracious offer of Doublethink and friends, as it offers freer speech than is permitted on a heavily censored Epiphanies. In accepting the terms, however, I think you should ask for the assurance that it will not be transferred to Epiphanies at a later point.
Doublethink: @ Marvin the Martian, I am aware that you have explained how important definitional issues are to you, and agreed with the Epiphanies hosting team that you could start a definitions analysis thread on this forum after the SNP leadership election finished. Please feel free to start that thread with a suitable OP, but definitional discussion should stay on that thread and not continue on this one.
I hope, Marvin the Martian, you will accept this gracious offer of Doublethink and friends, as it offers freer speech than is permitted on a heavily censored Epiphanies. In accepting the terms, however, I think you should ask for the assurance that it will not be transferred to Epiphanies at a later point.
(ETA hidden text, see admin post, DT, Admin)
Admin
@Kwesi I do not believe that you do not know that comments on ship’s policy belong in Styx. This appears to be a deliberate ignoring of the forum’s guidelines and previous warnings, therefore I am suspending you for two weeks - on return from shoreleave your Epiphanies posting privileges will remain suspended for a minimum of another four weeks.
It shows the considerable dangers to devolution this action by the UK government poses, why it is worth challenging even if you don't win (besides the moral issue, establishing the scope of these powers is important) and that what happens is up in the air - there's a lot of uncertainty about legal issues.
Comments
How would it make being trans easier? It wouldn't improve access to healthcare or a GRC. I don't know what else you mean by 'gender identification'.
Aside from the fact that everyone is already entitled to use the toilet of their choice anyway, it's nobody else's business what anyone else's genitalia looks like. Would you install people to inspect people's genitalia before entering a changing room or toilet? What happens when someone has a vaginoplasty or phalloplasty?
The actual solution is to let trans people live their lives and pee in peace, not encourage some unhinged people to become genital monitors.
How is it sophistry when it's literally the case that under-16s can and do live their lives as transgender children, just without a GRC? Those with supportive parents can already get a name changed by deed poll for instance, and be treated with puberty blockers. How are they less trans because they don't have a GRC?
Just because you don't understand what is involved in having a GRC doesn't mean that Karl is incorrect. The GRR is solely about making it easier to get a GRC, and doesn't change what a GRC does. At the moment in England and Wales for instance, a trans 16yo has the right to marry with parental permission but not the right to have the correct gender on their marriage certificate or be referred to as the right gender during the ceremony (marriage vows in England and Wales must specifically refer to husbands and/or wives* and it is based on your birth certificate - even though you can change the sex marker on your passport without a GRC, registrars will refuse to marry you as the right gender without a GRC).
*the only exception is for Quaker wedding ceremonies for historical reasons, since they don't have any set marriage vows - Quaker elders along with Jewish rabbis are entitled to act as registrars as Anglican priests are in England and Wales
It's sophistry because the issue is not about technicalities, but whether there should be equality of rights unabridged by age. Why should an under 16-year old trans be denied the emancipation accorded to a 16-year old?
Pure accuracy.
I mean referring to a person as 'a trans' isn't exactly helping your case.
KarlLB, you remind me of those who in an effort to lessen the enormity of the crime disagree that the Germans killed 6 million Jews, claiming it was only 5 million. You strain at the gnat to avoid confronting the camel.
Please do not compare other shipmates to holocaust apologists.
Doublethink, Admin.
Anything to avoid the question. I leave you to insert the appropriate phrase, hoping that enables you to address the substantive issue.
Doublethink, Admin
A huge part of this entire moral panic is intentional public misinformation about what a GRC does and what things it affects. It's not pedantry when this is the basis upon which Westminster seem to be building their potentially disastrous reforms for legal gender recognition. And it's also frankly not your place as a cis person to decide what the so-called 'essential question' is.
Sorry but pointing out the way in which you insist on dehumanising trans people is not avoiding the issue.
Why do they have to choose an age? I thought the argument was that individuals were aware of their gender from a much earlier age? Why should an individual's human rights in this matter be delayed for so long?
I find that remark offensive and unworthy of a shipmate. Once again you accuse me of adopting positions for which you are unable to offer evidence.
Excuse me, you are making all sorts of assumptions about me of which you have no knowledge. I make no such assumption about your gender identity etc., etc.. Nor do I think its your place to determined what opinions I might express on the ship within the bounds of a courtesy you seek to deny me on the grounds of my presumed gender.
Doublethink, Temporary Hosting
I think Starmer is a very serious problem for us in Scotland.
I wrote to all my MSPs about GRR (we have list MSPs from a variety of parties besides my SNP constituency MSP)
I got the best responses from my Green and SNP representatives. I wasn't keen on the way Scottish Labour framed their response as I thought it bought in far too much to certain narratives in the press and I said so, but nevertheless my two Labour MSPs pledged and did vote for GRR. In fact Labour did better than the SNP in terms of the vote, only being surpassed by the Lib Dems and Greens in terms of voting for the bill. They had only two MSPs vote against. So I gave them credit for that. And then Starmer...
Since he interfered and refused to oppose the Section 35 order the party has rowed back from its support and followed his line. They put out a statement sacrificing the defence of trans people to point-scoring plus two anti-trans MSPs (including one who broke the whip) have just been put on their new front bench.
Labour were the architects of Scottish devolution and meant to be rock solid on it and this was legislation they supported and voted for overwhelmingly. And yet Starmer has betrayed both trans people and devolution. Shocking and unexpected stuff from the party of Donald Dewar which bravely faced down 'Keep the Clause' in the early years of the Scottish parliament and held its nerve against the anti-gay tabloid moral panic, public opposition whipped up by that, the religious conservatives and the bigoted millionaire who funded the campaign.
It's good to see the people in Scottish Labour who haven't knuckled under to this like Monica Lennon, Mercedes Villalba and Richard Leonard but it's very bad news to see Scotland's major non right-wing opposition party refusing to defend devolution and throwing a scapegoated minority under the bus. And I'm afraid it has all come about since Starmer stuck his oar in.
The reason banging on about toilets is a problem in discussions of this kind, is the not very hidden subtext is that in singlesex spaces transwomen are likely to rape ciswomen. There is no evidence for this particular prejudice and it is not dissimilar to the homosexuals are likely to be peadophiles trope. Therefore you need a spectacularly good reason to bring this up, rather than “oh and another thing”.
The legislation under discussion here, whether enacted or not, does not change who may legally use what toilet in any part of the UK - so a spectacularly good reason appears to be absent and we do not expect shipmates to continue discussing toilets on this thread.
/Admin Clarification
@Marvin the Martian I am aware that you have explained how important definitional issues are to you, and agreed with the Epiphanies hosting team that you could start a definitions analysis thread on this forum after the SNP leadership election finished. Please feel free to start that thread with a suitable OP, but definitional discussion should stay on that thread and not continue on this one.
Thanks,
Doublethink, Admin
(ETA hidden text, see admin posts on this thread, DT, Admin)
I am honestly feeling so uncomfortable with the insistent badgering on this really not actually very important part of the legislation - on a day that is painful enough for trans people - when the rhetoric in Scotland and now from Westminster has always been about single-sex provision and trans people and allies attempting to get the message across that actually single-sex provision has always been available with GRCs existing and the function of a GRC doesn't change at all here. The issue of getting GRCs for under-16s is not something trans people are actually invested in right now given that potentially GRCs might be functionally scrapped altogether (the whole point of a GRC is that your previous legal sex is protected information that is not generally accessible*, which is then not a thing if you have separate legal sex and legal gender).
*single-sex provision such as women's shelters have *always* been able to be exempt from this
I am going to assume you crossposted with my admin post.
Doublethink, Admin
(ETA hidden text, see admin posts on this thread, DT, Admin)
Do we need a new thread @Pomona to look at what trans people and non binary people actually want to see from allies right now and to focus on what's happening at Westminster?
I hope, Marvin the Martian, you will accept this gracious offer of Doublethink and friends, as it offers freer speech than is permitted on a heavily censored Epiphanies. In accepting the terms, however, I think you should ask for the assurance that it will not be transferred to Epiphanies at a later point.
(ETA hidden text, see admin post, DT, Admin)
Admin
@Kwesi I do not believe that you do not know that comments on ship’s policy belong in Styx. This appears to be a deliberate ignoring of the forum’s guidelines and previous warnings, therefore I am suspending you for two weeks - on return from shoreleave your Epiphanies posting privileges will remain suspended for a minimum of another four weeks.
/Admin
Doublethink, Admin
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/04/25/chris-mccorkindale-and-aileen-mcharg-rescuing-the-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-the-scottish-governments-challenge-to-the-section-35-order/
It shows the considerable dangers to devolution this action by the UK government poses, why it is worth challenging even if you don't win (besides the moral issue, establishing the scope of these powers is important) and that what happens is up in the air - there's a lot of uncertainty about legal issues.