LONDON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The British government will block a bill passed by the Scottish parliament that makes it easier for people to change their legal gender, its Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said on Monday, the first time it has invoked the power to veto a Scottish law.

The move sparked a fresh argument with the devolved Scottish government, which has also been thwarted in its attempts to hold a new independence referendum.

Regardless of what people think about the law itself, this marks the first time the UK uses power to block a Scottish bill. Of course, Sturgeon uses this decision and frames this as "an attack on devolved powers". It is unclear how the issue impacts support for independence, we will probably see how this will develop in the next few days/weeks.

So do you think it was wise to block this law since the relationship has been quite sensitive in the last few years and the support for an independent Scotland seems to be growing?

I think it is quite a blunt instrument to use and will cause more tension between Scotland and London. Politically not the best decision they have taken the last ten years.

Dutchy wrote:

LONDON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The British government will block a bill passed by the Scottish parliament that makes it easier for people to change their legal gender, its Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said on Monday, the first time it has invoked the power to veto a Scottish law.

The move sparked a fresh argument with the devolved Scottish government, which has also been thwarted in its attempts to hold a new independence referendum.

Regardless of what people think about the law itself, this marks the first time the UK uses power to block a Scottish bill. Of course, Sturgeon uses this decision and frames this as "an attack on devolved powers". It is unclear how the issue impacts support for independence, we will probably see how this will develop in the next few days/weeks.

So do you think it was wise to block this law since the relationship has been quite sensitive in the last few years and the support for an independent Scotland seems to be growing?

I think it is quite a blunt instrument to use and will cause more tension between Scotland and London. Politically not the best decision they have taken the last ten years.

It is an interesting question regardless of my personal views on the gender debate.

Whilst I agree it does give sturgeon ammunition for her call on devolved powers sentiment but also think that sturgeon will use anything to keep the independence debate going in her favour.

But I do understand why they have done so Westminster has concerned about its impact on UK-wide equality laws. I think it is a bit of stubbornness on both sides of the political divide.

I think J K Rowling and other opponents of the bill argue the new rules will weaken the protection of spaces that are designed to make women feel safe, such as women-only shelters do have some merit.

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Dutchy wrote:

LONDON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The British government will block a bill passed by the Scottish parliament that makes it easier for people to change their legal gender, its Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said on Monday, the first time it has invoked the power to veto a Scottish law.

The move sparked a fresh argument with the devolved Scottish government, which has also been thwarted in its attempts to hold a new independence referendum.

Regardless of what people think about the law itself, this marks the first time the UK uses power to block a Scottish bill. Of course, Sturgeon uses this decision and frames this as "an attack on devolved powers". It is unclear how the issue impacts support for independence, we will probably see how this will develop in the next few days/weeks.

So do you think it was wise to block this law since the relationship has been quite sensitive in the last few years and the support for an independent Scotland seems to be growing?

I think it is quite a blunt instrument to use and will cause more tension between Scotland and London. Politically not the best decision they have taken the last ten years.

What can the Scottish Parliament do about it?

I am thinking people are tiring of the SNP. Whilst the Conservatives will be blown away in Scotland, I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in the 2024 General Election. The Independencd movement will lose traction I suspect.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/poli ... 903379.amp

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

I think those of you believing the SNP pushed this bill through hoping to provoke a reaction from Westminster missed the fact that the bill was supported by Labour and the Greens as well. It was an important piece of protection for vulnerable people.

Westminster's reaction is nothing more than Sunak pandering to the extreme right of his party, and he really doesn't care if trans people, already a highly vulnerable and marginalized group, get hurt in the process.

It would seem that this legislation was unpopular even within Scotland. And that the opposition was not based on any devolution or independence issues, but rather on whether it might be taking too big a step, and would complicate the application of gender rights law across the UK .

Just my opinion, but I think across the developed world, there is awareness of trans issues and a desire to not create unreasonable burdens for them. But at the same time, a desire also to invoke reasonable solutions. All of that is still being sorted out by society, and the discussion is healthy and productive. It's a complex issue withe layers of grey, that can't be reduced to black or white, or a sound byte.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

I think those of you believing the SNP pushed this bill through hoping to provoke a reaction from Westminster missed the fact that the bill was supported by Labour and the Greens as well. It was an important piece of protection for vulnerable people.

Westminster's reaction is nothing more than Sunak pandering to the extreme right of his party, and he really doesn't care if trans people, already a highly vulnerable and marginalized group, get hurt in the process.

I think you are right that Sunak is catering to the extremes of his party. But it is a clear signal that Westminster is overriding the Scotts with this step. This will not help the issue I am afraid. I think it will have a backslash that the independence movement will get a boast. We have seen in Northern Ireland that Westminster doesn't really care about those regions and we see it again in this case. I think that this attitude will lead to more resentment towards Westminster. What will happen in the end, is anybody's guess. But I thought it is rather interesting that they blocked a law for the first time.

flyguy89 wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

I think the issue is not the law itself, but the fact that it is blocked by Westminster, thus Westminster overruling the Scotts.

My take is under the new law if I 'live as a woman' whatever that means I can now be deemed to be a woman with access to areas such a female toilets,changing rooms and refuges.

Is that correct?.

Dutchy wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

I think the issue is not the law itself, but the fact that it is blocked by Westminster, thus Westminster overruling the Scotts.

I understand what you’re driving at, but I’m not convinced that the content of what is actually being overruled is irrelevant.

Dutchy wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

I think the issue is not the law itself, but the fact that it is blocked by Westminster, thus Westminster overruling the Scotts.

Which is within their rights to do when the Scottish law could have adverse affects to the rest of the country.

bennett123 wrote:

My take is under the new law if I 'live as a woman' whatever that means I can now be deemed to be a woman with access to areas such as female toilets, changing rooms and refuges.

Is that correct?.

No, not really. . There’s a lot of misinformation going around about this law. To be clear, I do not live in the UK but have family there.

The law is designed to make the act of obtaining a Gender Recognition certificate in the UK, or GRC easier. A GRC simply says that a person is legally female/male. It makes it easy to self certify, a system used in many countries with no problem.

A GRC is NOT required to enter any single Sex spaces. It never has been required, so acquiring on to do just that is pointless
From what I've read, the UK government has blocked the bill's royal ascent due to unqualified 'concernes' claiming the bill was 'rushed' through the Scottish parliament with no forethought of the consequences. They also claim it'll affect the UK's equal pay legislation, and other such laws, alongside the earlier mentioned Same sex spaces argument.

First up, the law was not 'rushed' though the Scottish parliament. In fact it took 6 years and two parliaments to reach this point. The debates were heated and and a number of amendments to the original legislation were made. The Bill itself was passed with an overwhelming near 2:1 majority and was supported not just by the SNP and the greens, but also by the labour party, the Lib Dems and a few conservatives as well. Nothing was rushed, it was heavily debated and passed overwhelmingly.

The Equalitiies act covers Equal pay, and it actually already covers much of the legislation allowing trans people to go about their lives without discrimination, the bill as mentioned predominantly deals with the self certification/ easing of obtaining documents proving a persons new gender.

What I think we're seeing is a sad swing to the right, demonising a minority in an effort to stoke the old culture wars nonsense in the UK for political gain, and it's a fantastically stupid move to do. The prime miss ist er just told Scotland to sit down and shut up, the adults are talking. Having lost their high court ruling on the right to call an indendence referendum, now they're. Being told that they can't even pass laws they are responsible for. If you're already in favour of independence in Scotland, this seems like a gift from the heavens.

It's just so sad to see this for the political stunt it is.

This might give a broader reflection on the GRR bill and it’s implications to the greater UK. It’s beyond me because I just think you are either male or female but that’s just me

https://unherd.com/thepost/why-scotland ... -whole-uk/

Currently, it is not entirely clear whether a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) issued under this system will be valid throughout the United Kingdom. This is certainly the intention of the Scottish government. The policy memorandum for the Bill claims that “although the Bill changes the process by which legal gender recognition can be obtained and the criteria, it does not change the effects of a GRC and the rights and responsibilities which a person has on obtaining legal gender recognition”.

Despite the lack of clarity over how the law will operate, the argument is that the GRR Bill does not create a certificate that is distinct from the UK GRC. Instead, the legislation introduces a new method by which those resident or born in Scotland can apply for a UK GRC.

Dutchy wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

I think the issue is not the law itself, but the fact that it is blocked by Westminster, thus Westminster overruling the Scotts.

It’s the UK government, not “Westminster”. The issue is the law, in the opinion of the UK Government.

If the law designed to support a very small minority has an adverse affect of a significantly higher number of people, then it’s a bad law. Under the law of the land, the UK Government has the right to block the Scottish Government passing such law.

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

The SNP is a single issue party. Absolutely everything they do is aimed at achieving independence for Scotland.

bennett123 wrote:

My take is under the new law if I 'live as a woman' whatever that means I can now be deemed to be a woman with access to areas such a female toilets,changing rooms and refuges.

Is that correct?.

If a man identifies as a woman, wears a wig and women’s clothes, who’s going to stop them from using a female toilet? Last I checked, our public toilets don’t yet feature gender inspectors.

Dutchy wrote:

LONDON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The British government will block a bill passed by the Scottish parliament that makes it easier for people to change their legal gender, its Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said on Monday, the first time it has invoked the power to veto a Scottish law.

The move sparked a fresh argument with the devolved Scottish government, which has also been thwarted in its attempts to hold a new independence referendum.

Regardless of what people think about the law itself, this marks the first time the UK uses power to block a Scottish bill. Of course, Sturgeon uses this decision and frames this as "an attack on devolved powers". It is unclear how the issue impacts support for independence, we will probably see how this will develop in the next few days/weeks.

So do you think it was wise to block this law since the relationship has been quite sensitive in the last few years and the support for an independent Scotland seems to be growing?

I think it is quite a blunt instrument to use and will cause more tension between Scotland and London. Politically not the best decision they have taken the last ten years.

Forgot the link

A101 wrote:

It’s beyond me because I just think you are either male or female but that’s just me

You can think what you like, of course, science does not agree with you.

Gender Dysphoria

John Oliver on the subject

And I happen to agree with that segment, why should society at large have an opinion about how an individual feels about him/her/its self? What is the exact problem society has with it? Just because someone does not conform to a norm. But it must be another liberal or conservative thing.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s beyond me because I just think you are either male or female but that’s just me

You can think what you like, of course, science does not agree with you.

Gender Dysphoria

John Oliver on the subject

And I happen to agree with that segment, why should society at large have an opinion about how an individual feels about him/her/its self? What is the exact problem society has with it? Just because someone does not conform to a norm. But it must be another liberal or conservative thing.

Biological fact does not change, and no amount of science is going to change it. you are either born male or female what they think cannot change that.

Thats all I am saying.

Interesting that the UN is against certain aspects of the GRR

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... r-28600151
And

https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResul ... ?gId=27681

However, I share the concern that such proposals would potentially open the
door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender
certificate and the rights that are associated with it. This presents potential risks to the
safety of women in all their diversity (including women born female, transwomen, and
gender non-conforming women).

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s beyond me because I just think you are either male or female but that’s just me

You can think what you like, of course, science does not agree with you.

Gender Dysphoria

John Oliver on the subject

And I happen to agree with that segment, why should society at large have an opinion about how an individual feels about him/her/its self? What is the exact problem society has with it? Just because someone does not conform to a norm. But it must be another liberal or conservative thing.

Biological fact does not change, and no amount of science is going to change it. you are either born male or female what they think cannot change that.

Thats all I am saying.

I respect your opinion. But even that is not true, in about 1:2000 - 1:4.500 cases babies are born with both male and female biological features.

Intersex

flyguy89 wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

That's why the big deal isn't the law, but Westminster's reaction to it...

scbriml wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

My take is under the new law if I 'live as a woman' whatever that means I can now be deemed to be a woman with access to areas such a female toilets,changing rooms and refuges.

Is that correct?.

If a man identifies as a woman, wears a wig and women’s clothes, who’s going to stop them from using a female toilet? Last I checked, our public toilets don’t yet feature gender inspectors.

There is merit in this argument, however it's also true that a person doing that without a GRC would have questionable intent. Whereas if they had the GRC, their intent would be regarded as benign.

There is a reason why trans people want the GRC, and there are benefits to having it. Some trans advocates are trying to have it both ways, saying it doesn't matter and it's essential, at the same time.

The goal of society, I think, is not to make the burden for obtaining a GRC unreasonable, but to create evidentiary qualifications that recognize the potential for illicit use & abuse. Providing a medical opinion doesn't seem like an undue burden. It's required for many other aspects of public documentation as well.

Number6 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

My take is under the new law if I 'live as a woman' whatever that means I can now be deemed to be a woman with access to areas such as female toilets, changing rooms and refuges.

Is that correct?.

No, not really. . There’s a lot of misinformation going around about this law. To be clear, I do not live in the UK but have family there.

The law is designed to make the act of obtaining a Gender Recognition certificate in the UK, or GRC easier. A GRC simply says that a person is legally female/male. It makes it easy to self certify, a system used in many countries with no problem.

A GRC is NOT required to enter any single Sex spaces. It never has been required, so acquiring on to do just that is pointless
From what I've read, the UK government has blocked the bill's royal ascent due to unqualified 'concernes' claiming the bill was 'rushed' through the Scottish parliament with no forethought of the consequences. They also claim it'll affect the UK's equal pay legislation, and other such laws, alongside the earlier mentioned Same sex spaces argument.

First up, the law was not 'rushed' though the Scottish parliament. In fact it took 6 years and two parliaments to reach this point. The debates were heated and and a number of amendments to the original legislation were made. The Bill itself was passed with an overwhelming near 2:1 majority and was supported not just by the SNP and the greens, but also by the labour party, the Lib Dems and a few conservatives as well. Nothing was rushed, it was heavily debated and passed overwhelmingly.

The Equalitiies act covers Equal pay, and it actually already covers much of the legislation allowing trans people to go about their lives without discrimination, the bill as mentioned predominantly deals with the self certification/ easing of obtaining documents proving a persons new gender.

What I think we're seeing is a sad swing to the right, demonising a minority in an effort to stoke the old culture wars nonsense in the UK for political gain, and it's a fantastically stupid move to do. The prime miss ist er just told Scotland to sit down and shut up, the adults are talking. Having lost their high court ruling on the right to call an indendence referendum, now they're. Being told that they can't even pass laws they are responsible for. If you're already in favour of independence in Scotland, this seems like a gift from the heavens.

It's just so sad to see this for the political stunt it is.

How ridiculous would it be if you're recognised as a male or female in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK. This is why this law was stopped, it really is a matter for Westminster, not the devolved parliaments. Good examples are passports and drivers licenses which are issued centrally, they haven't been devolved.

Dutchy wrote:

I respect your opinion. But even that is not true, in about 1:2000 - 1:4.500 cases babies are born with both male and female biological features.

Intersex

That is a scientific fact. It's also true that those people survive just fine in society. What laws are currently being pushed to protect the Intersex population?

Kiwirob wrote:

How ridiculous would it be if you're recognised as a male or female in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK. This is why this law was stopped, it really is a matter for Westminster, not the devolved parliaments. Good examples are passports and drivers licenses which are issued centrally, they haven't been devolved.

And that is not what’s happening. The GRC certificate issued would be the same as issued in the UK. It offers no special rights over the existing GRC.

Also the current equalities act of 2010 allows exemptions for trans people to not be provided access to same sex spaces. So the law is not impeded in any way. The outcome obtaining a GRC in Scotland is the same as in the rest of the UK. It is NOT a special status. All that’s changed is the process of obtaining it.

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

My take is under the new law if I 'live as a woman' whatever that means I can now be deemed to be a woman with access to areas such a female toilets,changing rooms and refuges.

Is that correct?.

If a man identifies as a woman, wears a wig and women’s clothes, who’s going to stop them from using a female toilet? Last I checked, our public toilets don’t yet feature gender inspectors.

There is merit in this argument, however it's also true that a person doing that without a GRC would have questionable intent. Whereas if they had the GRC, their intent would be regarded as benign.

I don't frequent female toilets (well, only once by complete accident!) but I'd be surprised if anyone looking vaguely female would be challenged to produce a GRC. In fact very few people in the UK actually have one as far as I can determine. Article is a couple of years old now:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/grc_numbers/

To date only around 5,000 people in the UK have obtained a GRC out of an estimated 200,000- 500,000 in the transgender population.

Number6 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

How ridiculous would it be if you're recognised as a male or female in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK. This is why this law was stopped, it really is a matter for Westminster, not the devolved parliaments. Good examples are passports and drivers licenses which are issued centrally, they haven't been devolved.

And that is not what’s happening. The GRC certificate issued would be the same as issued in the UK. It offers no special rights over the existing GRC.

Also the current equalities act of 2010 allows exemptions for trans people to not be provided access to same sex spaces. So the law is not impeded in any way. The outcome obtaining a GRC in Scotland is the same as in the rest of the UK. It is NOT a special status. All that’s changed is the process of obtaining it.

Then why does Scotland needs it's own when the UK blanket GRC covers the entire country? This appears to be a problem of there own making.

scbriml wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

If a man identifies as a woman, wears a wig and women’s clothes, who’s going to stop them from using a female toilet? Last I checked, our public toilets don’t yet feature gender inspectors.

There is merit in this argument, however it's also true that a person doing that without a GRC would have questionable intent. Whereas if they had the GRC, their intent would be regarded as benign.

I don't frequent female toilets (well, only once by complete accident!) but I'd be surprised if anyone looking vaguely female would be challenged to produce a GRC. In fact very few people in the UK actually have one as far as I can determine. Article is a couple of years old now:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/grc_numbers/

To date only around 5,000 people in the UK have obtained a GRC out of an estimated 200,000- 500,000 in the transgender population.

Don't think they'd ever be challenged while entering, it would be more in the event of reports by other concerned patrons, resulting in questioning by the authorities, as to why they used those facilities. Having the GRC would be useful in that case.

I think the reality is that for anyone whose goal is to discreetly use the facilities and leave, it's unlikely there would even be awareness. You just have to use the stalls.

This is the basic point of the advocates, that facilities don't have to be a major issue. Which is true. But most laws are written for the abusers, not the abiders. No different in this case.

In my customer schools in the US, the solution was to make the teacher restrooms (which are private) available to trans students. And also for disabled and other special needs students. It wasn't a big deal.

Some advocates claim these solutions are wrong, because they single out the trans students for different treatment. In my experience, the students, parents, and staff were all fine with it. There was no controversy or complaint.

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

I think the issue is not the law itself, but the fact that it is blocked by Westminster, thus Westminster overruling the Scotts.

It’s the UK government, not “Westminster”. The issue is the law, in the opinion of the UK Government.

If the law designed to support a very small minority has an adverse affect of a significantly higher number of people, then it’s a bad law. Under the law of the land, the UK Government has the right to block the Scottish Government passing such law.

Yes, it was also the devolved nations agreement that all parties, SNP included, signed up to when the Scottish Parliament was established.
Twenty years after they scuppered a not dissimilar bill causing a vote of no confidence, meaning Margaret Thatcher became PM, she would have done anyway most likely, just this meant 6 months sooner and with a bigger majority most likely.
At least they time they went with it, (not that they had a choice really given the Blair government's huge majority, unlike the minority government before).

Aesma wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

The cynic in me says that Nicola Sturgeon and her party introduced this law knowing that it would be challenged by Westminster as items relating to the equality act are not devolved.

They can, and will, now use this to increase pressure for independence.

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

That's why the big deal isn't the law, but Westminster's reaction to it...

I don’t think it’s yet been sufficiently established that this will in fact be a “big deal” as it concerns Scottish independence.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Are trans issues in Scotland really so galvanizing that it would at all move the needle among the gen pop regarding independence? My guess is probably not.

That's why the big deal isn't the law, but Westminster's reaction to it...

I don’t think it’s yet been sufficiently established that this will in fact be a “big deal” as it concerns Scottish independence.

It's an abrogation of their sovereignty.

To me, this is a bit like having a "red line" card with your spouse, and pulling it out when they buy an air fryer at Target.

It's a minor, totally harmless bill that will help some people and hurt none, but they've been trying to placate the very socially conservative right wing of the Conservative Party, so it gets blocked.

At the very least, it provokes a lot of cynicism around the role of the Scottish Parliament, probably causes a lot of consternation over the effective future of devolved government, etc. I wouldn't be happy if I were a Scot.

bluecrew wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

That's why the big deal isn't the law, but Westminster's reaction to it...

I don’t think it’s yet been sufficiently established that this will in fact be a “big deal” as it concerns Scottish independence.

It's an abrogation of their sovereignty.

To me, this is a bit like having a "red line" card with your spouse, and pulling it out when they buy an air fryer at Target.

It's a minor, totally harmless bill that will help some people and hurt none, but they've been trying to placate the very socially conservative right wing of the Conservative Party, so it gets blocked.

At the very least, it provokes a lot of cynicism around the role of the Scottish Parliament, probably causes a lot of consternation over the effective future of devolved government, etc. I wouldn't be happy if I were a Scot.

Exactly! This describes my sentiments about this issue, perfectly. Catering to the internal right-wing, discarding the opinions of an elected body over a non-issue.

drew777 wrote:

That is a scientific fact.

It is, that's why it is highly questionable if someone is of the opinion that this scientific fact is wrong. I only wanted to point that out and educate someone who might not have known about this fact.

Dutchy wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

I don’t think it’s yet been sufficiently established that this will in fact be a “big deal” as it concerns Scottish independence.

It's an abrogation of their sovereignty.

To me, this is a bit like having a "red line" card with your spouse, and pulling it out when they buy an air fryer at Target.

It's a minor, totally harmless bill that will help some people and hurt none, but they've been trying to placate the very socially conservative right wing of the Conservative Party, so it gets blocked.

At the very least, it provokes a lot of cynicism around the role of the Scottish Parliament, probably causes a lot of consternation over the effective future of devolved government, etc. I wouldn't be happy if I were a Scot.

Exactly! This describes my sentiments about this issue, perfectly. Catering to the internal right-wing, discarding the opinions of an elected body over a non-issue.

Well, that and if they want to preserve devolved government and Scottish membership in the UK, they're doing a pretty bad job of doing it! This plays right into an SNP narrative of Westminster's boot on the necks of the Scots.

Already playing out on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/stat ... 4402273283

bluecrew wrote:

It's an abrogation of their sovereignty.

Legally speaking I think it’s been established that it’s not. As a devolved nation in the UK their sovereignty only extends so far.

Again, it’s yet to be demonstrated that this episode at all moves the needle as to the question of independence among the general population. If you aren’t already pro-independence I doubt this is the issue that’s going to “turn” you. But I suppose we’ll soon discover for certain in future polling.

bluecrew wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

It's an abrogation of their sovereignty.

To me, this is a bit like having a "red line" card with your spouse, and pulling it out when they buy an air fryer at Target.

It's a minor, totally harmless bill that will help some people and hurt none, but they've been trying to placate the very socially conservative right wing of the Conservative Party, so it gets blocked.

At the very least, it provokes a lot of cynicism around the role of the Scottish Parliament, probably causes a lot of consternation over the effective future of devolved government, etc. I wouldn't be happy if I were a Scot.

Exactly! This describes my sentiments about this issue, perfectly. Catering to the internal right-wing, discarding the opinions of an elected body over a non-issue.

Well, that and if they want to preserve devolved government and Scottish membership in the UK, they're doing a pretty bad job of doing it! This plays right into an SNP narrative of Westminster's boot on the necks of the Scots.

Already playing out on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/stat ... 4402273283

Problem is it’s not totally a devolved matter when it effects the rUK and they didn’t vote on it

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-conten ... m-Bill.pdf

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

There is merit in this argument, however it's also true that a person doing that without a GRC would have questionable intent. Whereas if they had the GRC, their intent would be regarded as benign.

I don't frequent female toilets (well, only once by complete accident!) but I'd be surprised if anyone looking vaguely female would be challenged to produce a GRC. In fact very few people in the UK actually have one as far as I can determine. Article is a couple of years old now:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/grc_numbers/

To date only around 5,000 people in the UK have obtained a GRC out of an estimated 200,000- 500,000 in the transgender population.

Don't think they'd ever be challenged while entering, it would be more in the event of reports by other concerned patrons, resulting in questioning by the authorities, as to why they used those facilities. Having the GRC would be useful in that case.

I think the reality is that for anyone whose goal is to discreetly use the facilities and leave, it's unlikely there would even be awareness. You just have to use the stalls.

This is the basic point of the advocates, that facilities don't have to be a major issue. Which is true. But most laws are written for the abusers, not the abiders. No different in this case.

In my customer schools in the US, the solution was to make the teacher restrooms (which are private) available to trans students. And also for disabled and other special needs students. It wasn't a big deal.

Some advocates claim these solutions are wrong, because they single out the trans students for different treatment. In my experience, the students, parents, and staff were all fine with it. There was no controversy or complaint.

If a man tried to enter a female toilet, could he be refused entry if he had a GRC?.

bennett123 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I don't frequent female toilets (well, only once by complete accident!) but I'd be surprised if anyone looking vaguely female would be challenged to produce a GRC. In fact very few people in the UK actually have one as far as I can determine. Article is a couple of years old now:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/grc_numbers/

Don't think they'd ever be challenged while entering, it would be more in the event of reports by other concerned patrons, resulting in questioning by the authorities, as to why they used those facilities. Having the GRC would be useful in that case.

I think the reality is that for anyone whose goal is to discreetly use the facilities and leave, it's unlikely there would even be awareness. You just have to use the stalls.

This is the basic point of the advocates, that facilities don't have to be a major issue. Which is true. But most laws are written for the abusers, not the abiders. No different in this case.

In my customer schools in the US, the solution was to make the teacher restrooms (which are private) available to trans students. And also for disabled and other special needs students. It wasn't a big deal.

Some advocates claim these solutions are wrong, because they single out the trans students for different treatment. In my experience, the students, parents, and staff were all fine with it. There was no controversy or complaint.

If a man tried to enter a female toilet, could he be refused entry if he had a GRC?.

Here in France, when the mens toilets are being cleaned we're instructed to enter the female toilets.
The question is one of sovereinty. Already there are major differences between English, Welsh and Scottish law. Most recently any marriage before the age of 18 is considered in English law as child abuse. Welsh and Scottish law consideres marriage from age 16 legally valid (under certain circumstances) based on decades old UK law. I've not yet worked out whether a 16yr old couple married in Scotland or Wales would be subject to legal prosecution if entering England.

I also wonder, given normal 16-18yr old male behaviour, how many of those, mostly male MP's, who voted this law would be classed as child abusers if the law were made retroactive.

flyguy89 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

It's an abrogation of their sovereignty.

Legally speaking I think it’s been established that it’s not. As a devolved nation in the UK their sovereignty only extends so far.

Again, it’s yet to be demonstrated that this episode at all moves the needle as to the question of independence among the general population. If you aren’t already pro-independence I doubt this is the issue that’s going to “turn” you. But I suppose we’ll soon discover for certain in future polling.

Might be taking this one a little too literally - by sovereignty, I meant a synonym for "authority and legitimacy," not implication that the devolved assembly was "sovereign" in the sense of having self-determination and international recognition to form their own laws.

In that regard, invoking this block is a huge blow to that legitimacy, and over something very minor and steeped in culture war. For the 85% of people that don't care about the right-wing signaling in the anti-trans culture war (in Scotland I'd bet that's above 85%), this one isn't hitting the pleasure centers or encouraging warm feelings towards Parliament.

It's a move that is the SNP's to waste. Not helpful to the Tories when the Conservative Party is polling as well as some STDs lol

Dutchy wrote:

drew777 wrote:

That is a scientific fact.

It is, that's why it is highly questionable if someone is of the opinion that this scientific fact is wrong. I only wanted to point that out and educate someone who might not have known about this fact.

The Intersex argument is a straw man often brought up in these discussions. I just wanted to point out that actual Intersex people thrive within our current legal framework. Perhaps transexuals don't need laws catering to their every whim.

PhilBy wrote:

Here in France, when the mens toilets are being cleaned we're instructed to enter the female toilets.

What is very common and seen all the time, are women using the men's toilets, every time there is a bit of a crowd.

drew777 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

drew777 wrote:

That is a scientific fact.

It is, that's why it is highly questionable if someone is of the opinion that this scientific fact is wrong. I only wanted to point that out and educate someone who might not have known about this fact.

The Intersex argument is a straw man often brought up in these discussions. I just wanted to point out that actual Intersex people thrive within our current legal framework. Perhaps transexuals don't need laws catering to their every whim.

just pointed out that A101 was wrong. It was not meant as an argument at all.

I thought there was a major issue with intersex people, that are assigned a gender according to the "looks" of their genitalia, and often are operated on when very young, then have issues with it later in life ?

Dutchy wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

I don’t think it’s yet been sufficiently established that this will in fact be a “big deal” as it concerns Scottish independence.

It's an abrogation of their sovereignty.

To me, this is a bit like having a "red line" card with your spouse, and pulling it out when they buy an air fryer at Target.

It's a minor, totally harmless bill that will help some people and hurt none, but they've been trying to placate the very socially conservative right wing of the Conservative Party, so it gets blocked.

At the very least, it provokes a lot of cynicism around the role of the Scottish Parliament, probably causes a lot of consternation over the effective future of devolved government, etc. I wouldn't be happy if I were a Scot.

Exactly! This describes my sentiments about this issue, perfectly. Catering to the internal right-wing, discarding the opinions of an elected body over a non-issue.

An elected body that agreed to the rule that’s now been invoked. It’s a non-issue, so why can’t Scotland abide by the UK-wide law that already exists?

bluecrew wrote:

For the 85% of people that don't care

I think you inadvertently summed it up here. Most people don’t care (for leftist virtue signaling as well as right wing culture war nonsense on this issue). Thus it’s challenging to see this being a wedge issue that will meaningfully impact independence sentiments.

The Scottish polls on this issue were 60% opposed, 20% in favor, and 20% undecided. So doesn't seem like this will be a major driver on the independence issue, at least within the population, since the UK position is the more popular one.

bennett123 wrote:

If a man tried to enter a female toilet, could he be refused entry if he had a GRC?.

A man with a GRC is a woman, so why wouldn’t they use a female toilet? Who would be refusing entry to the toilet?

scbriml wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If a man tried to enter a female toilet, could he be refused entry if he had a GRC?.

A man with a GRC is a woman, so why wouldn’t they use a female toilet? Who would be refusing entry to the toilet?

My understanding is that the law now says that if you 'live like a woman' for three months you get a GRC. There is no requirement for a medical assessment.

So what exactly does 'live like a woman' mean?.