Sorry, wimz, sucks to be you
So, they’ve done it.
The Scottish Parliament has passed legislation which aims to make it easier for transgender people to change their legally recognised gender.
At the expense of women.
Campaign groups have warned that the reforms – which seek to make the process for people to obtain a gender recognition certificate easier – could risk the safety of women and girls.
Will. Not could, but will.
However, supporters of the changes insist that it is about simplifying the process and removing hurdles within the current requirements.
That’s not a however, it’s just an and. Of course it’s about simplifying the process and removing hurdles, which is what makes it a risk to the safety of women and girls.
Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman hailed the result as a “historic day for equality”.
It’s got nothing to do with equality. Allowing men to pretend to be women and thus invade women’s spaces and steal women’s opportunities has nothing to do with equality.
“The last three days of debate have shown the best and worst of our Parliament. But today isn’t about party politics. It is about the future and the progressive and inclusive society that we want to build.”
Burble burble burble. What even are words? Progressive how? Inclusive of what? Buzzwords butter no parsnips.
Joan Smith’s take:
“It’s like being in a strange, dystopian novel. I’m writing this in England, separated by an invisible border from a country where every single man is just a certificate away from being a woman…what is happening in Scotland is seismic.”
https://unherd.com/thepost/scotlands-gender-reform-is-a-vote-against-reality/
What if a women’s organization refuses to recognize a GRC? I mean, it wouldn’t he a great idea to put a sign saying “No Men with GRC’s Allowed” but if it’s privately funded and run, wouldn’t it still fall under “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone?”
I wonder if some of the people who support this see trans inclusion as being similar to religious inclusion. If you support a persons right to be a Christian or a Muslim or whatever despite the competing nature of the beliefs and their general lack of factual support in reality then perhaps it only seems fair to support trans peoples beliefs. I mean, if people are allowed to believe in the virgin birth, or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a Pegasus, why shouldn’t they be allowed to believe that sex is a matter of self declaration? To us those beliefs are completely unreasonable, but when we point that out we get called assholes (or bigots, or worse) for doubting other peoples sincerely held beliefs. So when politicians who aren’t trans support pro trans legislation it’s like being non religious but supporting pro religion legislation in the name of tolerance and inclusion.
VanitysFiend — at the risk of stating the obvious, those of us who are not moral absolutists don’t give a fig for what the trans believe. They’re welcome to believe whatever they like! It’s what they do that concerns us, and what they demand (often with violence — the literal kind!) that we do, say, and not say, and what happens with facilities which up until recently, and for very good reasons, had been women-only.
@VanitysFiend
#3
One can reject Islam without being Islamophobic. Can one reject gendet ideology without being transphobic?
Re #3
I think you make a good point. I suspect that a lot of casual supporters of “trans rights” don’t think about the issue a lot, and they see it as very similar to being tolerant and accepting of people of various religions. It’s of little consequence to accommodate differences, they might say, whether it’s wearing a kippa or wearing a dress, calling someone by a newly-acquired Arabic name or referring to someone as “they”. Clearly not a big deal; clearly the only people who would reject this must be bigots.
Unfortunately, it’s not quite so simple in either case. Some religious accommodations demanded are unreasonable and infringe on the rights of others. We don’t all need to pretend we agree with religious claims; we don’t need to make religious rituals part of the lives of the people who don’t belong to that religion; we can’t present religious truth claims as fact; we can’t allow practices that are abusive. This is even more of a problem in regard to trans ideology, where the entire point seems to be getting other people to do things to “validate” one’s identity, where threats of litigation and suicide over minor things like using grammatically correct pronouns are rampant, and where the rights of women are being systematically dismantled in favor of men, regardless of how they identify.
If only we could get the casual observers who think they are just being “nice” and “tolerant” to see these problems.
Much less likely with dishonest reporting by captured media.
There are still some legal issues that need to be resolved. There’s a very clear clash between how the EA defines “man” and “woman” and how they’re being assumed in the GRA legislation. There’s also an enormously glaring issue about claims that a GRC changes sex “for every purpose” when this would seem to be trivially overruled by the EA. A recent judicial result says otherwise in Scotland… but Scottish law can’t overrule UK law like that…
I expect a lot of wrangling to be done and I’m moderately optimistic. But in the meantime the waters have been muddied, which I think was part of the point. It’s win-win for the gender-friends, regardless of the result. The issue has been cemented in the UK media as being about fairness and justice for poor men who just want to attack and intimidate women by taking away every boundary they have.