UK government to block Scottish gender bill - first time a devolved government has been blocked from passing a law.

[blueinsa]

Really?

Sturgeon tweeted the following after the Scottish Secretary used Section 35.

“This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish parliament and it’s ability to make its own decisions on devolved matters. @scotgov will defend the legislation and stand up for Scotland’s parliament. If this Westminster veto succeeds, it will be first of many.”

If you don't think this was about furthering the cause of independence, I suggest you drink more.

You make more of an effort to dispel this disingenuous bollox than I can be bothered mate.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I think this covers it....

https://www.lgo.org.uk/information-...-sex-carers-can-impact-dignity-says-ombudsman

Not providing same sex carers can impact dignity, says Ombudsman....​

An investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has highlighted the need for care providers to make every effort to supply vulnerable clients with same-sex carers, after a family was left without respite for more than two years.

The ombudsman is underlining the advice after a couple complained that Warwickshire County Council did not ensure their daughter’s intimate care needs would be met by female staff at a respite centre, despite it being in her support plan.

The couple’s daughter is in her thirties and has significant needs. She cannot communicate verbally, and is dependent on others for all her personal care. Until 2011 the family used the residential centre for regular breaks. But after February that year – when the centre changed owners – the family became concerned about staffing levels and declined to send their daughter to the home. This meant that the couple were without respite care for two-and-a-half years.

The council did offer a second care home option to the family during the period, but the family turned it down because they said it was unsuitable for their daughter's needs.

Although it is not a legal requirement to provide same sex carers, where a request is made for valid reasons, the LGO maintains that a provider should make every effort to provide same sex care, and the Equality Act 2010 allows for the recruitment of staff of a specific sex as an occupational requirement.

In addition, during that period the family discovered that the new owners of the home had neglected to register it with industry regulators, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and the council failed to check the home’s registration.

The couple’s other complaints included the council delaying dealing with both their complaint and its investigation.

Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said:

“Under the Equality Act 2010 the need to deliver same-sex care is an ‘objective justification’ for advertising and recruiting workers to fulfil the need. It is not enough for a provider to say 'We cannot guarantee same sex care'. They need to demonstrate that they have made every effort to ensure the service is delivered in the way that is best for the recipient.

“In this case, the family did not feel confident that the council could protect their daughter and the care home could provide the same-sex care that they requested. They have missed vital opportunities to go away on holiday or simply have a break from their caring responsibilities.”

The LGO has recommended that Warwickshire County Council review its advice to care providers regarding employing staff of a specific sex where it is considered a necessary requirement of the job.

The council has already agreed to arrange respite care at the home in line with the daughter’s care plan and support plan, and the home has agreed to offer the guarantee of female carers for intimate care.

The LGO has also recommended the council apologise to the couple and pay them £5,500 for the lack of appropriate respite care services over the past two and a half years and pay them an additional £1,000 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

.....................

In this case the family requested same sex care for their daughter, we do not know what the daughter feels about this because she is unable to communicate her needs.This woman has a family but if she did not, then the policy must be that if a woman cannot communicate her needs to a care giver or care provider, then the assumption must be that a same sex carer is the default position and not, as you asserted, that'll it'll be OK if....



And if they can't communicate we'll never know.

As for....



This...



As Henrietta stated....

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1585669235749146625.html

No disabled person of either sex should have to say why they want same sex care. It’s their right in law, however, in many places same-sex care has been replaced by same-gender care and self ID makes a mockery of same-sex policy.

This breaks my heart....

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1608172278810030082.html

How have we become a society where disabled women fear the turning of their own front door key because they know, across the UK, a man can turn up unwanted to do their care? If they refuse them they are labelled transphobic & there are instances of care being withdrawn.

How have we become a society where the parents of disabled girls (often the mum as the primary carer) fear their death because they can no longer be assured their disabled daughter’s same-sex care needs will be met? No matter where their daughter lives, no guarantee.

How have we become a society where politicians don’t acknowledge or give disabled women & their parents some of their time to discuss their concerns about the consequences of gender ideology on care? Instead they block them on social media and pretend they don’t exist.

The care sector has trouble recruiting staff. So it's not unlikely for these situations to occur.

I'd include (non-verbal) outburts or distress, it's reasonable to exclude men with beards or older men from caring from vulnerable male patients if those features trigger them.

I've met nurses who were known professionally under a female name but would have still been legally known as their male name for other purposes. Not domiciliary care, but they may have performed similar work or supervised it.

If the patient doesn't have a problem with a transgender carer, or hasn't communicated it in any way, including behavioural change, what's the problem?

 

[Coatigan]

So Nicola immediately claiming the Westminster decision to block the bill was yet another case for independence wasn’t her or the SNP making it about independence then?

Come on pal…

Of course it was, and if you look back you will see I said as much myself. Both will have latched onto it.

Since though the issue has been around the bill itself. Apart from on here, where I stand by what I said, even if it is part jokingly.

 

[blueparrot]

Do you agree with the bill?

I’ve said before when I read the arguments on both sides I find myself agreeing wwith large parts of both arguments so I don’t really know.
I guess that means I agree in the main with the bill but think it needs additional safeguards in it to satisfy some of those arguing against it. The womans prison issue has show there are unanticipated issues with it, doesn't mean the general gist of the bill is wrong.
What I think is it was a well intentioned bill that maybe should have been taken a little more time with. That said I think the argument for no bill is weak and somewhat generated by predudices against Sturgeon and the SNP fuelled by the Scottish Mail and Express and I certainly don’t think Westminster should be allowed to stop it with no debate and no votes because one man doesn’t like it.

 

[meltonblue]

A tough week or two for sturgeon during which she will have learned a lot about the difference between putting forward legislation as a party of protest, vs a party of govt. She's been interviewed by several people that have clearly given more thought to the detail of the proposed gender bill than either her or her party have. A bunch of incompetent fannies - reputations saved only by the fact the Westminster fannies are corrupt as well as crap

Doesn’t the bill essentially just replicate what they’ve had in place in Ireland since 2015? If so, there must be some real world data somewhere that can start to quantify the impacts of it.

I’ve seen very little objective reporting of the issue from either side of the debate tbh. I get why, it’s a very emotive subject, but surely some of the perceived impacts could be assessed more.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The care sector has trouble recruiting staff. So it's not unlikely for these situations to occur.

I'd include (non-verbal) outburts or distress, it's reasonable to exclude men with beards or older men from caring from vulnerable male patients if those features trigger them.

I've met nurses who were known professionally under a female name but would have still been legally known as their male name for other purposes. Not domiciliary care, but they may have performed similar work or supervised it.

If the patient doesn't have a problem with a transgender carer, or hasn't communicated it in any way, including behavioural change, what's the problem?

I despair.

in the cold light of day this whataboutery is simply blown away by reality, as Nicola Sturgeon is finding out to her cost. I suppose the only glimmer of hope is that Starmer might take note.

If Sturgeon and the SNP can't sell this north of the border, then it's likely Labour will struggle to sell "Our Pledges" to the leafy suburbs and the red wall.

You never know, the Labour Leader might seize the moment to unburden himself of a policy he inherited from Corbyn. Starmer is a good New Labour clone, he's ditched pledges before when it suited. He can see Sturgeon squirming on the issue, he might well see this as an opportunity to under cut the SNP north of the border and curry favour with Tory voters in one fell swoop, if he can do a quick back peddle without too much political damage.

In point 4 we have the utterly meaningless mantra...

4. Accept that Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary people are non-binary.

Point 5 is particularly Orwellian...

5. Accept that there is no material conflict between trans rights and women's rights, and that all trans women are subject to misogyny and patriarchal oppression.

Accept! Accept!

These are not pledges they're commands.

I wonder what the penalty for saying no might be? Expulsion and a knock on the door from plod?

Sadly for the SNP and Labour, and the Greens and Lib Dems for that matter, sex has a way of crashing the party, as the Nationalists have discovered with a bump. Poor Nicola, it seems the mantra trans women are women as an unalterable fact doesn't hold up when it meets real life, like a self proclaimed trans woman committing a crime, because then they're just blokes.

JK Rowling tweeted Orwell’s chillingly appropriate quote from Nineteen Eighty-Four in response to this SNP car crash : ‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’

 

[The perfect fumble]

Doesn’t the bill essentially just replicate what they’ve had in place in Ireland since 2015? If so, there must be some real world data somewhere that can start to quantify the impacts of it.

I’ve seen very little objective reporting of the issue from either side of the debate tbh. I get why, it’s a very emotive subject, but surely some of the perceived impacts could be assessed more.

Debbie Hayton is a transgender British secondary school science teacher and political activist....

How the trans activists fooled Ireland...​

https://unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-trans-activists-fooled-ireland/

 

[meltonblue]

Debbie Hayton is a transgender British secondary school science teacher and political activist....

How the trans activists fooled Ireland...​

https://unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-trans-activists-fooled-ireland/

I meant more in terms of any statistical analysis into it.

 

[The perfect fumble]

From the Sunday Times...

Support for the SNP, for Nicola Sturgeon and for Scottish independence has fallen sharply as the party’s crisis over transgender rights deepens.

The latest YouGov poll in Scotland from January 23 to January 26, found that Sturgeon’s approval rating had slipped into negative territory, from +7 to -4, since October. In the space of a month, support for the SNP in the next Scottish parliament election had fallen from 50 per cent to 44 per cent in the constituency vote, and from 40 per cent to 36 per cent in the regional vote and from 43 per cent to 42 per cent for Westminster. The poll also showed a reversal on the independence question over past month, with support for secession down from 53 per cent to 47 per cent among those expressing a view — the lowest since last spring.

 

[Coatigan]

From the Sunday Times...

Support for the SNP, for Nicola Sturgeon and for Scottish independence has fallen sharply as the party’s crisis over transgender rights deepens.

The latest YouGov poll in Scotland from January 23 to January 26, found that Sturgeon’s approval rating had slipped into negative territory, from +7 to -4, since October. In the space of a month, support for the SNP in the next Scottish parliament election had fallen from 50 per cent to 44 per cent in the constituency vote, and from 40 per cent to 36 per cent in the regional vote and from 43 per cent to 42 per cent for Westminster. The poll also showed a reversal on the independence question over past month, with support for secession down from 53 per cent to 47 per cent among those expressing a view — the lowest since last spring.

Good bit of poll analysis that. I am generally sceptical about polls (for example I have consistently maintained that I think there is not enough of an apetite for independence, despite polls over 2 years suggesting otherwise), however that is a pretty clear indication this bill has been a bit of a shitting of the bed for the snp.