Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

rjsterry · January 2023

First.Aspect said:
The issue is not anti- or pro- anything, it is that the SNP and its opponents have framed the debate in these terms.

How on earth has it become that you are either feminist and anti-trans, or pro-trans and anti-feminist?

WTF is going in in Scotland?

I don't think that's limited to Scotland.

rick_chasey · January 2023

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:
It’s exactly what the critics of the trans laws ha
rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:
This makes an awkward situation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242

I’m sure you could make a strong argument the transition was solely to get yourself in a womens prison. Would be a sorry situation to be put in a women’s prison for committing crimes against women when you were a male.

But then it blows an enormous hole in way the trans laws are evolving.

Tbh, if I was in politics, half the stuff that came across my desk, I’d just be thinking who the hell makes this stuff up.
I find it odd that apparently no-one can conceive of a cis woman possibly sexually assaulting another woman. I mean it's almost as if the lack of safety in prisons is the issue rather than gender.
Why not go the whole hog and have mixed gender prisons.

And if not, you have to then work out what you do with men who lie to be treated as women.
Well obviously this. Just not sure that is in itself a reason to insist a small but significant number of non-criminal people have to formally apply for something that the rest of us take for granted.
Sure but the same logic applies to all places where there is gender segregation, right?
Not thought enough about it, but broadly I think so. In this specific scenario, I can't see why the duty of care for other inmates shouldn't take precedence and the prisoner gets put in whichever prison is deemed most appropriate on a case by case basis.
Right.

Problem is in other gender segregated settings you don’t have a court, nor the time, to establish things on a case-by-case basis.

I can’t really see a solution, as either the trans lot lose out or women do.

It’s a troubling zero sum game which is why I think the debate is quite so toxic.
As you started to say, it's exactly what one side of the argument kept warning against.

It feels like either, it isn't a significant issue, and thus this case is very fortuitous for the "anti" side of the argument. Or that the pro side of the argument has perhaps underestimated the risks.

If roughly 1% of the population is trans, and that population is evenly spread among prisoners, that's around 800 trans prisoners. that's feels like enough for tabloids to make a story out of regularly.

This is then all combined with a criminal justice system that seems to be quite flawed.

I don't think it's about, for what of a better phrase, authentic trans people - i.e. people who are going through whatever they're going through and are focused on themselves.

It's about the law that is appropriate for them might not be appropriate for women, as there will be predatory men who use it for their predatory ends.

More broadly, amongst some women there is a feeling that by accommodating trans, the previous female spaces are basically letting in men, which I can more easily sympathise with.

First.Aspect · January 2023

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:
The issue is not anti- or pro- anything, it is that the SNP and its opponents have framed the debate in these terms.

How on earth has it become that you are either feminist and anti-trans, or pro-trans and anti-feminist?

WTF is going in in Scotland?
I don't think that's limited to Scotland.

The problem with Scotland, and with independence, is that it is such a small country that there is no inertia against idiocy. Imagine how much havoc the idiots who are currently in charge could reap in 5-10 years?

rjsterry · January 2023

I don't really understand the popularity of the Nats. Anyone can vote for a populist once, but usually a failure to fulfill the extravagant promises makes people come to their senses.

briantrumpet · January 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:
The issue is not anti- or pro- anything, it is that the SNP and its opponents have framed the debate in these terms.

How on earth has it become that you are either feminist and anti-trans, or pro-trans and anti-feminist?

WTF is going in in Scotland?
I don't think that's limited to Scotland.
The problem with Scotland, and with independence, is that it is such a small country that there is no inertia against idiocy. Imagine how much havoc the idiots who are currently in charge could reap in 5-10 years?

I suspect that's not entirely unrelated to Scotland's recently created separate parliament being dominated by a party which has been so focused on the 'independence' bit that has not necessarily attracted candidates with all-round skills in policy formation across the breadth of competence of any parliament and the stuff where there's no easy answer.

First.Aspect · January 2023

rjsterry said:
I don't really understand the popularity of the Nats. Anyone can vote for a populist once, but usually a failure to fulfill the extravagant promises makes people come to their senses.

They have the ultimate get out of jail free card of blame Westminster.

The latest one is to blame the tax rises on the tories (which is a synonym for westminster) because they aren't giving them enough money.

Now if you have even average intellect, you will translate this to an independent Scotland with excessive borrowing (and high spend and high tax and low wages and low investment, if you are really paying attention).

But successive UK parliamentarians have not bitten back and specifically criticised where all the money has gone, out of a misplaced "that's devolved" philosophy.

The local opposition is a woeful charisma vacuum.

This part of the UK desperately needs someone with a brain to get aggressive with the SNP on the substance of what they are doing.

pinno · January 2023

Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?

rick_chasey · January 2023

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?

Depends if you want to make accommodations for trans people who have not had surgery or not.

First.Aspect · January 2023

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?
Depends if you want to make accommodations for trans people who have not had surgery or not.

Yup. Very not simple in the slightest.

If you think the debate about trans athletes os tricky, have a think about 15 year olds deciding to gender reassign the day they turn 16, based on a self assessment.

Then consider being vilified for being anti-trans by querying how many 16 year olds are even fully past puberty who would be making that decision. But a science lead debate seems to be anti trans as well.

So this is a government who believes you are physically, cognitively and emotionally mature enough decide you want to be a different gender and get medical treatment for it at 16, but that you are not able to operate a motor vehicle until 17 or have a glass of wine until 18.

surrey_commuter · January 2023

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?

Exactly

Or you believe that anybody can identify as a woman in which case you have to suck up the bad things that happen as a result of that.

Personally I find it frightening (and awe inspiring) how the trans lobby have managed to set the agenda and make debate so toxic that they have shut down debate about issues that would have been satire a few years ago.

It would not surprise me if Starmer ended up being dethroned by ridicule for his failed attempt to answer a question of whether a woman can have a penis

kingstongraham · January 2023

Maybe they can just have women's prisons and open prisons.

First.Aspect · January 2023

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?
Exactly

Or you believe that anybody can identify as a woman in which case you have to suck up the bad things that happen as a result of that.

Personally I find it frightening (and awe inspiring) how the trans lobby have managed to set the agenda and make debate so toxic that they have shut down debate about issues that would have been satire a few years ago.

It would not surprise me if Starmer ended up being dethroned by ridicule for his failed attempt to answer a question of whether a woman can have a penis

This is the issue that the press has latched on to, because the new law simply requires someone to "identify as a woman" for 3 months before being legally considered female.

The likes of J K Rowling have expressed concerns about women only spaces, but I've not seen any analysis of the magnitude of the risk this would present in reality. Just a lot of offensive placards.

But the real issue is more a child protection issue. Because, oh yes, the UN defines a child as anyone under 18.

surrey_commuter · January 2023

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?
Exactly

Or you believe that anybody can identify as a woman in which case you have to suck up the bad things that happen as a result of that.

Personally I find it frightening (and awe inspiring) how the trans lobby have managed to set the agenda and make debate so toxic that they have shut down debate about issues that would have been satire a few years ago.

It would not surprise me if Starmer ended up being dethroned by ridicule for his failed attempt to answer a question of whether a woman can have a penis
This is the issue that the press has latched on to, because the new law simply requires someone to "identify as a woman" for 3 months before being legally considered female.

The likes of J K Rowling have expressed concerns about women only spaces, but I've not seen any analysis of the magnitude of the risk this would present in reality. Just a lot of offensive placards.

But the real issue is more a child protection issue. Because, oh yes, the UN defines a child as anyone under 18.

If a bloke wants to wear a dress and be called Daphne then he should be able to crack on with it but should not expect to walk into a women's changing room or womens sports team.

I can't help but think this would wok for 99.99% of people and that it is just the trans activists stiring up trouble

First.Aspect · January 2023

Shouldn't they? You sure?

Which changing room should they use then?

It isn't simple. So all simple answers will be wrong.

Pross · January 2023

It feels like the ultimate dilemma in balancing the rights of one group against the rights of another group. In the past when there have been clashes between things such women's rights v the impact on men or sexuality v religious belief there has been a weight behind the one side to push things through. The problem in this scenario is that the minority group's rights are impacting on the rights of what was previously the "protected" party.

It's an ethical can of worms that makes euthenasia debates seem straightforward.

veronese68 · January 2023

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?

Offer instant removal of meat and 2 veg with a meat cleaver if anyone in posession wants to go to a women's prison, that might help them make a decision.

Stevo_666 · January 2023

veronese68 said:

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?
Offer instant removal of meat and 2 veg with a meat cleaver if anyone in posession wants to go to a women's prison, that might help them make a decision.

As long as you use the right pronoun when addressing them, I'm sure that'll work.

rick_chasey · January 2023

kingstongraham said:
Maybe they can just have women's prisons and open prisons.

If you want to be treated like a women, being sent to the "not women" bit isn't being treated like a woman.

kingstongraham · January 2023

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:
Maybe they can just have women's prisons and open prisons.
If you want to be treated like a women, being sent to the "not women" bit isn't being treated like a woman.

It's the solution sports seem to be coming up with.

rick_chasey · January 2023

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:
Maybe they can just have women's prisons and open prisons.
If you want to be treated like a women, being sent to the "not women" bit isn't being treated like a woman.

It's the solution sports seem to be coming up with.

Sure, but let's not pretend it's a "job done" solution.

This was my point earlier; there is a zero-sum element to the discussion, especially in gender segregated parts of society.

Jezyboy · January 2023

I think it's the best solution that sports will be able to come up with. Not sure it works elsewhere though.

First.Aspect · January 2023

The legal changes for adults are not all that contentious. Just makes the process less burdensome and humiliating. The particular case in the news at the moment is a lightening rod for those who argue it has gone too far the other way. Which is debatable.

I'm surprised how steadfastly this thread is focusing on that, rather than people who are, according to the UN and science, likely to be too young to be making informed decisions that will profoundly affect the rest of their lives.

That's the part that Kier Starmer has correctly flagged as being of greatest concern.

You know, we get the politicians we deserve. And we have so many of the ones we do because thoughtful measured politicians are so often ignored.

rjsterry · January 2023

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:
Surely if you have testicles and a penis, you should be sent to a male prison and if you have a vagina...

Simples no?
Exactly

Or you believe that anybody can identify as a woman in which case you have to suck up the bad things that happen as a result of that.

Personally I find it frightening (and awe inspiring) how the trans lobby have managed to set the agenda and make debate so toxic that they have shut down debate about issues that would have been satire a few years ago.

It would not surprise me if Starmer ended up being dethroned by ridicule for his failed attempt to answer a question of whether a woman can have a penis
This is the issue that the press has latched on to, because the new law simply requires someone to "identify as a woman" for 3 months before being legally considered female.

The likes of J K Rowling have expressed concerns about women only spaces, but I've not seen any analysis of the magnitude of the risk this would present in reality. Just a lot of offensive placards.

But the real issue is more a child protection issue. Because, oh yes, the UN defines a child as anyone under 18.
If a bloke wants to wear a dress and be called Daphne then he should be able to crack on with it but should not expect to walk into a women's changing room or womens sports team.

I can't help but think this would wok for 99.99% of people and that it is just the trans activists stiring up trouble

This is such bollox. It's half a step away from the classic "I've got no problem with X but why do they have to keep shoving it in my face?".

surrey_commuter · January 2023

First.Aspect said:
The legal changes for adults are not all that contentious. Just makes the process less burdensome and humiliating. The particular case in the news at the moment is a lightening rod for those who argue it has gone too far the other way. Which is debatable.

I'm surprised how steadfastly this thread is focusing on that, rather than people who are, according to the UN and science, likely to be too young to be making informed decisions that will profoundly affect the rest of their lives.

That's the part that Kier Starmer has correctly flagged as being of greatest concern.

You know, we get the politicians we deserve. And we have so many of the ones we do because thoughtful measured politicians are so often ignored.

Because it is all related to a powerful lobbying group that has made the subject so toxic that it can not be sensibly debated

surrey_commuter · January 2023

First.Aspect said:
Shouldn't they? You sure?

Which changing room should they use then?

It isn't simple. So all simple answers will be wrong.

It really is very simple - if you have meat and two veg you don't go in safe spaces for women

kingstongraham · January 2023

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:
Maybe they can just have women's prisons and open prisons.
If you want to be treated like a women, being sent to the "not women" bit isn't being treated like a woman.

It's the solution sports seem to be coming up with.
Sure, but let's not pretend it's a "job done" solution.

This was my point earlier; there is a zero-sum element to the discussion, especially in gender segregated parts of society.

If someone believes a trans woman is a woman who just has a different physiology, then why would there be any difference in the way they are treated no matter what? That is where compromise becomes impossible as it's an article of faith.

I don't believe that benefits anyone.

First.Aspect · January 2023

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:
Shouldn't they? You sure?

Which changing room should they use then?

It isn't simple. So all simple answers will be wrong.
It really is very simple - if you have meat and two veg you don't go in safe spaces for women

I am sorry I disagree. That's not even the case now.

The perceived problem with the new legislation, insofar as it relates to this issue, is that it will no longer be required to have a formal medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and that a person can self declare and live as another gender for only 3 months in order to acquire legal status as that gender.

I do not know what the details or practicalities of the process under the new legislation. Given that it is Scotland under the SNP perhaps no one does. But the critics are saying it is going to be too easy. The proponents are saying that right now it is too hard.

The cynics suggest that the SNP have intentionally contravened UK legislation to pick a fight they can't win. But the legislation is very unpopular and I don't think this would have been the SNPs chosen rallying cry.

My view is that the MSPs as a group seem to have all jumped on a bit of a yoghurt knitting badwagon of who could be the most inclusive, perhaps fearful of any backlash, only realising there was significant and active opposition when they'd already hung their reputations on it.

morstar · January 2023

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:
Shouldn't they? You sure?

Which changing room should they use then?

It isn't simple. So all simple answers will be wrong.
It really is very simple - if you have meat and two veg you don't go in safe spaces for women
I am sorry I disagree. That's not even the case now.

The perceived problem with the new legislation, insofar as it relates to this issue, is that it will no longer be required to have a formal medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and that a person can self declare and live as another gender for only 3 months in order to acquire legal status as that gender.

I do not know what the details or practicalities of the process under the new legislation. Given that it is Scotland under the SNP perhaps no one does. But the critics are saying it is going to be too easy. The proponents are saying that right now it is too hard.

The cynics suggest that the SNP have intentionally contravened UK legislation to pick a fight they can't win. But the legislation is very unpopular and I don't think this would have been the SNPs chosen rallying cry.

My view is that the MSPs as a group seem to have all jumped on a bit of a yoghurt knitting badwagon of who could be the most inclusive, perhaps fearful of any backlash, only realising there was significant and active opposition when they'd already hung their reputations on it.

Which is odd. Pardon my ignorance but I don’t think of Scotland as a bastion of inclusivity when compared to many parts of the UK.

rick_chasey · January 2023

It’s quite easy to forget that for a lot of trans people, being excluded from areas of their chosen gender can be deeply traumatic for them, far more traumatic than you’d have thought.

First.Aspect · January 2023

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:
Shouldn't they? You sure?

Which changing room should they use then?

It isn't simple. So all simple answers will be wrong.
It really is very simple - if you have meat and two veg you don't go in safe spaces for women
I am sorry I disagree. That's not even the case now.

The perceived problem with the new legislation, insofar as it relates to this issue, is that it will no longer be required to have a formal medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and that a person can self declare and live as another gender for only 3 months in order to acquire legal status as that gender.

I do not know what the details or practicalities of the process under the new legislation. Given that it is Scotland under the SNP perhaps no one does. But the critics are saying it is going to be too easy. The proponents are saying that right now it is too hard.

The cynics suggest that the SNP have intentionally contravened UK legislation to pick a fight they can't win. But the legislation is very unpopular and I don't think this would have been the SNPs chosen rallying cry.

My view is that the MSPs as a group seem to have all jumped on a bit of a yoghurt knitting badwagon of who could be the most inclusive, perhaps fearful of any backlash, only realising there was significant and active opposition when they'd already hung their reputations on it.
Which is odd. Pardon my ignorance but I don’t think of Scotland as a bastion of inclusivity when compared to many parts of the UK.

It is certainly a profoundly monochromatic society.

The SNP talk a good talk, but when it comes down to it they can't even tolerate English people, and the populist vision of an independent Scotland doesn't seem to me to include anything other than white people wearing tartan.

Inclusivity of other minorities? Not sure. It's not terrible I don't think, but fossils of proto humans known as "Scottish man" do suggest that the species is quite macho. That and a lot of rural areas probably adds up to being a bit behind overall I'd have thought.

The gender recognition act doesn't reflect overall sentiment, more a government with no opposition doing whatever takes their fancy. They ignored any critique if it because they could.

Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

Comments

Categories