The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

"The current system doesn't provide adequate protection for women so why are you bringing in rules to further lessen those protections?" is neither a ridiculous line nor difficult to see why she struggled.

Correct. I'm generally ok with people deciding who/what they want to be, but I don't think the whole world and it's laws should necessarily move to accommodate it. I look at Isla Bryson, who commits two rapes of females as a bloke in 2016 and 2019, appeared at his first trial as a bloke called Alex, then decides he's going to transition. So we decide we're going to lock him up in a women's prison? I don't understand the dilemma - you're going to the bloke's pokey and you can fcuking transition when you've served your time.

And for avoidance of doubt. This. Absolutely this. But still that has nowt to do with GRC.

[Prufrock]

"The current system doesn't provide adequate protection for women so why are you bringing in rules to further lessen those protections?" is neither a ridiculous line nor difficult to see why she struggled.

Don't really get why people are impressed with her. Despite a historically unpopular Tory party, even by Scottish standards they're no nearer independence then when she took over, and Scotland performs terribly in any number of areas where policy is devolved and within SNP control. She's good at a platitude-filled interview though.

It is because GRC did NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH to lessen the protections of women in prisons. It changed - with regard to incarceration, precisely zilch. The only people who are pretending it did are right wing nutjobs so I'm a bit disappointed in you here!

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. If we're doing playground generalisations this is a line of argument trotted out by people who think "supporting trans people is good (I agree!) + lots of people have pretty grim views on trans people and trans rights = anyone who disagrees with policies designed to further trans rights is a bigot and should be ignored". It's wrong-headed and completely ignores the competing rights of women to single-sex spaces (and leads to weirdos on the internet sending JK Rowling death threats). It's really important that the policies on how we deal with trans people in society are properly argued and do everything they can to balance the knotty problem of those two valid, sometimes competing sets of rights of two groups in society.

First of all, being frank, Adam Graham is not trans. One of two things is happening: either he, and a growing number of male rapists are faced with the choice of a) spending their prison sentence as a convicted sex-offender in a male prison or b) avoiding the famously warm welcome given to sex offenders AND getting access to vulnerable women by claiming to be trans, and choosing the latter; or, some aspect of the pre-sentencing review process is allowing a hitherto undetected group of trans people who just so happen to be sex offenders to come to light. You don't need to be a genius to work out which it is.

The problem with self-ID is not trans people, it is male sex offenders being able to access women's spaces by giving a simple declaration. The laughable answer by the SG was to say "well there will be criminal penalties for people who lie". Leaving aside the clearly insurmountable issue of how on earth you're meant to prove that, do they honestly think the threat of criminal penalties is enough to stop sex offenders? I'm pretty sure it's already illegal.

Onto the GRC question: it is relevant on both a micro and macro scale, and an absolutely valid line of questioning to NS who stumbled answering it because there is no answer.

Firstly on a micro level, the Scottish Parliament's proposed gender reforms absolutely do make a difference to incarceration. It wasn't relevant to Adam Graham (who didn't have one), but it makes an already bad situation worst and absolutely would be relevant to the incarceration of future Adam Grahams.

The Scottish Prison Service's policy on housing trans-identified prisoners is that a decision is made on a case-by-case, risk-assessed basis. Their old guidance used to explicitly say that having a GRC was a relevant consideration in pointing towards housing in the female estate (for trans women). It no longer explicitly says this, but it will obviously be a relevant factor in any decision (if there even still is a decision to be made (see below)). Adam Graham did not have a GRC and SPS were STILL going to house him in a women's prison. If he did have one, and under the proposed law he could have gained one through self-ID, do you think that makes SPS more likely to have housed him in a women's prison if faced with the case fresh tomorrow? Clearly so.

However, SPS might not even be relevant. There was a recent case of the Scottish Outer Session (that will undoubtedly end up in the UK Supreme Court) that rules that a GRC meant that the holder was legally the *sex* they obtained under the GRC. In my view, that decision is wrong and will be overturned, but it is currently law and may stand. If the decision is right, there is no decision for SPS, Adam Graham could self-ID as a woman and he would no longer fall under the SPS policy on housing trans-identifying prisoners because he would simply be a woman, not a trans-identifying woman.

And on a macro level it is still a relevant question. Even if not relevant to prisons (which it is) it's still a fair question to say "look there are not currently sufficient protection for single-sex spaces as seen by SPS's decision to house Adam Graham in a women's prison, how is it justified to lessen those protections in wider society. If men are prepared to lie about being trans in order to access prisons, do you think they wouldn't in order to access other single-sex spaces such as changing rooms and refuges?"

[Worthy4England]

"The current system doesn't provide adequate protection for women so why are you bringing in rules to further lessen those protections?" is neither a ridiculous line nor difficult to see why she struggled.

Correct. I'm generally ok with people deciding who/what they want to be, but I don't think the whole world and it's laws should necessarily move to accommodate it. I look at Isla Bryson, who commits two rapes of females as a bloke in 2016 and 2019, appeared at his first trial as a bloke called Alex, then decides he's going to transition. So we decide we're going to lock him up in a women's prison? I don't understand the dilemma - you're going to the bloke's pokey and you can fcuking transition when you've served your time.

Absolutely where I am - But in the realm of politics, there's a vocal minority labelling you a bigot for that completely reasonable, sensible and normal viewpoint.

I find it quite consoling that to some, I'm a woke liberal and to others I'm a right wing bigot... That'll do for me.

[Worthy4England]

"The current system doesn't provide adequate protection for women so why are you bringing in rules to further lessen those protections?" is neither a ridiculous line nor difficult to see why she struggled.

Don't really get why people are impressed with her. Despite a historically unpopular Tory party, even by Scottish standards they're no nearer independence then when she took over, and Scotland performs terribly in any number of areas where policy is devolved and within SNP control. She's good at a platitude-filled interview though.

It is because GRC did NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH to lessen the protections of women in prisons. It changed - with regard to incarceration, precisely zilch. The only people who are pretending it did are right wing nutjobs so I'm a bit disappointed in you here!

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. If we're doing playground generalisations this is a line of argument trotted out by people who think "supporting trans people is good (I agree!) + lots of people have pretty grim views on trans people and trans rights = anyone who disagrees with policies designed to further trans rights is a bigot and should be ignored". It's wrong-headed and completely ignores the competing rights of women to single-sex spaces (and leads to weirdos on the internet sending JK Rowling death threats). It's really important that the policies on how we deal with trans people in society are properly argued and do everything they can to balance the knotty problem of those two valid, sometimes competing sets of rights of two groups in society.

First of all, being frank, Adam Graham is not trans. One of two things is happening: either he, and a growing number of male rapists are faced with the choice of a) spending their prison sentence as a convicted sex-offender in a male prison or b) avoiding the famously warm welcome given to sex offenders AND getting access to vulnerable women by claiming to be trans, and choosing the latter; or, some aspect of the pre-sentencing review process is allowing a hitherto undetected group of trans people who just so happen to be sex offenders to come to light. You don't need to be a genius to work out which it is.

The problem with self-ID is not trans people, it is male sex offenders being able to access women's spaces by giving a simple declaration. The laughable answer by the SG was to say "well there will be criminal penalties for people who lie". Leaving aside the clearly insurmountable issue of how on earth you're meant to prove that, do they honestly think the threat of criminal penalties is enough to stop sex offenders? I'm pretty sure it's already illegal.

Onto the GRC question: it is relevant on both a micro and macro scale, and an absolutely valid line of questioning to NS who stumbled answering it because there is no answer.

Firstly on a micro level, the Scottish Parliament's proposed gender reforms absolutely do make a difference to incarceration. It wasn't relevant to Adam Graham (who didn't have one), but it makes an already bad situation worst and absolutely would be relevant to the incarceration of future Adam Grahams.

The Scottish Prison Service's policy on housing trans-identified prisoners is that a decision is made on a case-by-case, risk-assessed basis. Their old guidance used to explicitly say that having a GRC was a relevant consideration in pointing towards housing in the female estate (for trans women). It no longer explicitly says this, but it will obviously be a relevant factor in any decision (if there even still is a decision to be made (see below)). Adam Graham did not have a GRC and SPS were STILL going to house him in a women's prison. If he did have one, and under the proposed law he could have gained one through self-ID, do you think that makes SPS more likely to have housed him in a women's prison if faced with the case fresh tomorrow? Clearly so.

However, SPS might not even be relevant. There was a recent case of the Scottish Outer Session (that will undoubtedly end up in the UK Supreme Court) that rules that a GRC meant that the holder was legally the *sex* they obtained under the GRC. In my view, that decision is wrong and will be overturned, but it is currently law and may stand. If the decision is right, there is no decision for SPS, Adam Graham could self-ID as a woman and he would no longer fall under the SPS policy on housing trans-identifying prisoners because he would simply be a woman, not a trans-identifying woman.

And on a macro level it is still a relevant question. Even if not relevant to prisons (which it is) it's still a fair question to say "look there are not currently sufficient protection for single-sex spaces as seen by SPS's decision to house Adam Graham in a women's prison, how is it justified to lessen those protections in wider society. If men are prepared to lie about being trans in order to access prisons, do you think they wouldn't in order to access other single-sex spaces such as changing rooms and refuges?"

Agree with this in pretty much every dimension. The only thing I'd add is the "Have you ever had a pair of bollocks" test...it's served society (as a generalisation) pretty well down the years, with obvious grey areas such as people with one bollock.

[BWFC_Insane]

"The current system doesn't provide adequate protection for women so why are you bringing in rules to further lessen those protections?" is neither a ridiculous line nor difficult to see why she struggled.

Don't really get why people are impressed with her. Despite a historically unpopular Tory party, even by Scottish standards they're no nearer independence then when she took over, and Scotland performs terribly in any number of areas where policy is devolved and within SNP control. She's good at a platitude-filled interview though.

It is because GRC did NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH to lessen the protections of women in prisons. It changed - with regard to incarceration, precisely zilch. The only people who are pretending it did are right wing nutjobs so I'm a bit disappointed in you here!

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. If we're doing playground generalisations this is a line of argument trotted out by people who think "supporting trans people is good (I agree!) + lots of people have pretty grim views on trans people and trans rights = anyone who disagrees with policies designed to further trans rights is a bigot and should be ignored". It's wrong-headed and completely ignores the competing rights of women to single-sex spaces (and leads to weirdos on the internet sending JK Rowling death threats). It's really important that the policies on how we deal with trans people in society are properly argued and do everything they can to balance the knotty problem of those two valid, sometimes competing sets of rights of two groups in society.

First of all, being frank, Adam Graham is not trans. One of two things is happening: either he, and a growing number of male rapists are faced with the choice of a) spending their prison sentence as a convicted sex-offender in a male prison or b) avoiding the famously warm welcome given to sex offenders AND getting access to vulnerable women by claiming to be trans, and choosing the latter; or, some aspect of the pre-sentencing review process is allowing a hitherto undetected group of trans people who just so happen to be sex offenders to come to light. You don't need to be a genius to work out which it is.

The problem with self-ID is not trans people, it is male sex offenders being able to access women's spaces by giving a simple declaration. The laughable answer by the SG was to say "well there will be criminal penalties for people who lie". Leaving aside the clearly insurmountable issue of how on earth you're meant to prove that, do they honestly think the threat of criminal penalties is enough to stop sex offenders? I'm pretty sure it's already illegal.

Onto the GRC question: it is relevant on both a micro and macro scale, and an absolutely valid line of questioning to NS who stumbled answering it because there is no answer.

Firstly on a micro level, the Scottish Parliament's proposed gender reforms absolutely do make a difference to incarceration. It wasn't relevant to Adam Graham (who didn't have one), but it makes an already bad situation worst and absolutely would be relevant to the incarceration of future Adam Grahams.

The Scottish Prison Service's policy on housing trans-identified prisoners is that a decision is made on a case-by-case, risk-assessed basis. Their old guidance used to explicitly say that having a GRC was a relevant consideration in pointing towards housing in the female estate (for trans women). It no longer explicitly says this, but it will obviously be a relevant factor in any decision (if there even still is a decision to be made (see below)). Adam Graham did not have a GRC and SPS were STILL going to house him in a women's prison. If he did have one, and under the proposed law he could have gained one through self-ID, do you think that makes SPS more likely to have housed him in a women's prison if faced with the case fresh tomorrow? Clearly so.

However, SPS might not even be relevant. There was a recent case of the Scottish Outer Session (that will undoubtedly end up in the UK Supreme Court) that rules that a GRC meant that the holder was legally the *sex* they obtained under the GRC. In my view, that decision is wrong and will be overturned, but it is currently law and may stand. If the decision is right, there is no decision for SPS, Adam Graham could self-ID as a woman and he would no longer fall under the SPS policy on housing trans-identifying prisoners because he would simply be a woman, not a trans-identifying woman.

And on a macro level it is still a relevant question. Even if not relevant to prisons (which it is) it's still a fair question to say "look there are not currently sufficient protection for single-sex spaces as seen by SPS's decision to house Adam Graham in a women's prison, how is it justified to lessen those protections in wider society. If men are prepared to lie about being trans in order to access prisons, do you think they wouldn't in order to access other single-sex spaces such as changing rooms and refuges?"

But the SPS have stated that GRC plays no role in their risk assessment. As far as I can tell FOIs for these show no record of GRC in the process. You can have a GRC in England the only change to the Scottish law was as you say the self ID aspect.

But you can change your sex on your passport etc without a GRC.

If people want to get angry about prison risk assessments then that is valid. If they want to debate the merits of self ID for GRC then crack on. But unless it actually does make a difference to the risk assessment (and FOIs currently show it does not) then I don’t think the issues are linked beyond some vague future ‘potential legal challenge from a prisoner with a GRC’ which seems to be the only concern across the academic literature.

I’ve no interest in the wider debate to be honest as it’s toxic and without good answer and I certainly have no wish to get into that.

I just think the questions asked of Sturgeon were a bit stupid. And if they’d asked something more along the lines of increased future risk and issues with risk assessments it might have made sturgeon actually offer something useful.

[Prufrock]

Firstly, it's important to be clear on the difference between the "old" GRC and the "new" (self ID) GRC. Those labels don't really work as the legislation isn't in force yet subject to the UKG s.35 order but the important thing is the difference in standard to obtain one.

Secondly, I very much doubt the SPS can truthfully say that having a GRC "plays no role in their risk assessment". The old draft of their guidance explicitly included it, and this was removed after consultation with the Scottish Trans Alliance (as an aside, I know nothing about the STA, and have no problem with interest groups arguing their cause, but the effective contracting out of government policy to interest groups is a mini-scandal in itself). Despite being removed from explicit mention it is *clearly* a relevant consideration for SPS in making their decision (we are trying to determine if a trans-identifying prisoner is suitable for the women's estate, the fact that there is a piece of legislation which says they are to be deemed in law to be of the gender that matches that sex, or if the Haldane decision is correct more than that, that they are in fact that *sex*, is obviously relevant, it would be unlawful not to consider it). The reason it was removed is that the STA argued that leaving it in would mean that trans-identifying convicts who didn't have an old GRC would be more likely to be housed in the estate of their birth sex. I.e. it would make it much harder for an Adam Graham to enter the women's estate because he only had self-ID which isn't enough under the old rules.

What they likely *can* say is that having a GRC hasn't played a role in any of the risk assessments they have carried out. Because these convicts don't have an old GRC. Because they aren't actually trans.

The reason is was removed from the guidance is because the criteria for the old GRC are *more* restrictive that the policy SPS employed. If you have an old GRC then you were almost certain to pass the SPS test anyway so they didn't need to consider the GRC (or if Haldane is correct you didn't even have to apply the policy).

I appreciate that this is techy and legal, but the line of questioning to Sturgeon was valid and she couldn't answer it because there is no answer. Essentially:

- The decision to house Adam Graham in the women's estate was *wrong* under the "old" law. The SG have admitted this, and he won't be. They've danced on the head of a pin refusing to answer whether they say think he's a man or a woman, instead his gender/sex seems to be "rapist" (and that in itself is a valid question, it's a scratch and sniff, *this one* is an easy answer, and if you can't give that answer you're in trouble).

-It's wrong because SPS were applying either the wrong policy, or the right policy wrongly. Again, admitted by the SG. This is bad, but agencies do get the law wrong sometimes and it isn't always easy (though again, male rapist+women's prison=?) but so far so government gets it wrong.

-However, the proposed change to the new GRC criteria would make it the *right* decision. Either, per Haldane because he'd legally be a woman and so there is no policy to apply, or you can absolutely bet your bottom dollar that if they were still doing their "case-by-case, risk assessed" decision on trans-identifying prisoners, then the new GRC absolutely would become part of that policy. It's no surprise the old one didn't because those criteria were more restrictive than what SPS were applying.

That's the issue. Under the "old" law, sending Adam Graham to the women's estate is wrong in law but in accordance with the SPS policy (bad). Under the "new" law, sending him there is likely the "right" decision (even worse). It turns a policy failure which can quickly be corrected (as here) into the correct decision across the board.

As a final aside, I think I've explained why you wouldn't expect an FOI to show anything on the way the policy has been applied under the old GRC rules. But it's worth noting that a "nil" FOI response is not really evidence that something doesn't exist. It's like trying to find Bolton on a map using a microscope, it's far too precise a tool. The wording has to be pretty much exact or you're not finding anything. It's not a conspiracy, they just get shipped out to a carved-out FOI team who don't really know what they are looking for an just use crude search terms. Even more so in this case, given that, if there are any (which I doubt) trans prisoners with an old GRC (i.e. a much better test of genuinely trans prisoners) their number is likely so low that the info would be exempt under GDPR (i.e. there's basically only three and so if we told you you'd be able to identify them).

[Montreal Wanderer]

Agree with this in pretty much every dimension. The only thing I'd add is the "Have you ever had a pair of bollocks" test...it's served society (as a generalisation) pretty well down the years, with obvious grey areas such as people with one bollock.

Certainly the Vatican applied the test to popes for centuries after being caught out by Pope Joan.

[Worthy4England]

deleted

[Worthy4England]

Deleted

[Worthy4England]

Deleted

[Worthy4England]

Deleted

[Worthy4England]

Agree with this in pretty much every dimension. The only thing I'd add is the "Have you ever had a pair of bollocks" test...it's served society (as a generalisation) pretty well down the years, with obvious grey areas such as people with one bollock.

Certainly the Vatican applied the test to popes for centuries after being caught out by Pope Joan.

[Hoboh]

Agree with this in pretty much every dimension. The only thing I'd add is the "Have you ever had a pair of bollocks" test...it's served society (as a generalisation) pretty well down the years, with obvious grey areas such as people with one bollock.

Certainly the Vatican applied the test to popes for centuries after being caught out by Pope Joan.

Been on the pop Worthy

For what it's worth, I don't think the decline of Sturgeon was solely about the, ahem, gender cock up.
Personally I find it strange there now seem to be masses of gender doubting people but just like members of the gay community it is solely their business with the exception of wanting favourable laws above those that apply to everyone.
I do however feel that women should be protected and there should be no erosion of their life and hard fought for rights, crimes committed as a bloke should be dealt a sentence and custody as a bloke. I read about that gender change swimmer in the US who dropped their pants in the female changing area exposing a penis, surely this cannot be right given it upset the others in there?

Sturgeons main problem is the failing policy she keeps pushing with one eye on independence, Scotland is in as bad if not a worse place than ever because of this.

[BWFC_Insane]

Pru - this view from a Professor of Law is what I’m talking about.

Crucially, the proposed reforms will have no impact whatsoever in women’s bathrooms or in other gender segregated spaces. This is because, by virtue of Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010, all trans women who have undergone, are undergoing, or intend to undergo a process of gender transition (this need not be medical transition) are, irrespective of whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), already, subject to some exceptions, legally able to access women-only spaces. In other words, the right which some imagine will usher in all kinds of mischief already exists. This is, in a nutshell, the crux of the matter. For a media less obsessed with trans people, and more concerned with facts, this would be a non-story.

The fact is that what the GRC does is not a factor in shared spaces since by law trans people already have the right to access shared spaces (where said shared spaces allow it there is also the right to not allow it in some cases).

My point is (and you’ve suggested along with prisons that shared spaces are impacted) that the Scottish government legislation changed NOTHING about the rights the GRC offered only the process for obtaining one. And that if the concern is (as is absolutely right) men abusing the process then they don’t need a GRC to do that as it doesn’t give them the rights they already have in law.

[TANGODANCER]

Pru - this view from a Professor of Law is what I’m talking about.

In other words, the right which some imagine will usher in all kinds of mischief already exists.

I can't be alone in thinking it already has. "Mischief", far too light a word, hardly describes any of it though.

[BWFC_Insane]

Pru - this view from a Professor of Law is what I’m talking about.

In other words, the right which some imagine will usher in all kinds of mischief already exists.

I can't be alone in thinking it already has. "Mischief", far too light a word, hardly describes any of it though.

I mean that’s a separate discussion. And one I certainly don’t see how I can wade into a debate I have no stake in.

I’m not aware of that right causing a huge amount of issues to date but equally I also feel that it has potential to do so and to some of society’s most vulnerable women. So yes a debate that won’t get us anywhere…that I don’t really have a clear view or even feeling on. It’s not really my business.

[Worthy4England]

Deleted

[Worthy4England]

Been on the pop Worthy

For what it's worth, I don't think the decline of Sturgeon was solely about the, ahem, gender cock up.
Personally I find it strange there now seem to be masses of gender doubting people but just like members of the gay community it is solely their business with the exception of wanting favourable laws above those that apply to everyone.
I do however feel that women should be protected and there should be no erosion of their life and hard fought for rights, crimes committed as a bloke should be dealt a sentence and custody as a bloke. I read about that gender change swimmer in the US who dropped their pants in the female changing area exposing a penis, surely this cannot be right given it upset the others in there?

Agree with most of this and no I hadn't even been out! I had one of those "why's it not posting" things, and kept hitting submit!

[BWFC_Insane]

I posted a long post that just refused to post.

So let me summarise my key points:

The generations behind us will change societal norms and values as we and others have done (many examples from wife beating, women’s rights, racial equality etc all things that were vehemently opposed at the time by some). Whether we like it or not the world and its values change around us.

The argument that ‘X people can do what they want so long as they don’t expect equality’ isn’t going to cut it.

We cannot trade off one groups rights Vs another and both sides of the argument here are effectively wanting to do that.

Trans people are NOT asking for special laws or treatment over and above anyone else that is a bogus argument they are simply wanting to have the same rights as anyone else.

The problem with said right is it impinges on women’s rights for safe and protected spaces. Which is an issue for a whole multitude of reasons.

The threat to women’s spaces is not from legitimate trans people but from men who abuse the laws to access women’s spaces. Doing so is protected by law…it is illegal to falsely declare gender and access these areas under false pretences. But legal protection is arguably not enough given the risk this presents to vulnerable women….though legal protections aren’t enough to prevent rape but we don’t seem too bothered by that….

However, the summary of all this is you have two communities in a toxic argument about rights with no real solution. However, the actual problem is not the trans community or women or even radical feminists. The actual problem is men who seek to abuse women and will take advantage of any law or equalities change to let them do that.

I find it very sad that this is the situation.

But as Pru has accurately assessed…the problem is not trans people. It’s abusive men. Perhaps it’s time to tackle the problem rather than pit minorities against each other.

[TANGODANCER]

Trans people are NOT asking for special laws or treatment over and above anyone else

Not quite sure changing 2000 years of generally accepted Scripture law of one designation or another(none of which, to the best of my knowledge deals with the Aunt Fanny/Uncle Tommy issue). Based on The Williams Institute report for U'S'A', the following emerges:

Nearly one in five people who identify as transgender are ages 13-17.
The percentage and number of adults who identify as transgender in the U.S. has remained steady over time.
Our estimate of the number of youth who identify as transgender has doubled from our previous estimate.

So not white-bearded Disciples then, but kids? Not exactly Biblical either since:

Michael Dillon (1915-1962) was the first person in the world to transition from female-to-male through hormones and surgery. From an aristocratic family, Dillon led the women's rowing team to many victories while at Oxford University in the 1930s.

So half-a-century then since the first world-changer appeared? Less since Javelin throwing British Olympians emerged.


" the problem is not trans people. It’s abusive men. Perhaps it’s time to tackle the problem rather than pit minorities against each other."

The problem with abusive men is timeless, it's also sex-related. Skate around that fact as often as you like, its a reality. Christianity has as many sins as the rest where sex is concerned and is hardly a minority. It's also a deeply shaming thing to admit, but then again, Christianity started 2000 years ago, not in 1915.

Least said, soonest mended, I was taught.