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

My only thought on this is the age at which people could receive the necessary surgery.
I believe age 16 is far too young to start the procedure. At age 16 a person is still a child.
18 is quite young enough imo.
Personally I would raise the age from 18 to 21, but that's me.

Not sure you can label someone as I child. I know a 4 year old who likes Werthers and refers to himself... shit can't say that. He refers....shit can't say that. Bloody hell.


It prefers we use focgender. Think on you labelling fuckers.
 
Really? This bill has been years in the making and has included consultation with various groups represented by all involved, it is the uk govt doing the trouble causing, you may see it different if you're a Tory ****
The SNP only exist to cause trouble. Mainly with the English to appease their lowest common denominator bigot voter. They have long since abandoned any policy of proper government. The cult only want to hear soundbites.
I vote Lib Dem as a tactical vote to keep the Natzis out, and it works in my area.
The vast majority of people up here are against the bill, including Nats but many will have to back them regardless because they see the English as a bigger enemy than trans whatever they class themselves to be. However some of them will now ditch the party.

‘ Tory c*nt ‘ you say ? ….Wow, proper hard. Typical Corbynista drivel.
 
Last edited:
It was a manifesto commitment wasn’t it, which was then voted for by members across holyrood?

If that’s the case, whether people agree with it or not is a bit of a moot point, it’s more around the legal argument of whether the devolved government has the power to change the law in this particular circumstance.

I listened to the debate yesterday, I do find it pretty dubious that the bill got all the way through with multiple readings before the Scottish secretary decided to raise the legal advice he’d received, there’s surely been ample time to discuss it up to now.
 
Another Sturgeon political football.

There are no levels to which this woman wont stoop for her own personal agenda.
 
Usual retort.

Do carry on.

Explain it then.

All cis means is non-trans.

So the objection is to being called non-trans.

Nobody told anyone that they need to wear a cis label.

What you are objecting to is other people using terminology you don't agree with in conversations that don't involve you.

As I said earlier, I don't "use pronouns in bio", and would tell anyone in insisting that I did to get lost.

I don't wear cis label myself in every circumstances because I'm not daft, but I don't have the petty victimhood to feel people saying cis-men in context offensive. The only point to ever use it is when also talking about trans people.
 
The vast majority of people up here are against the bill, including Nats but many will have to back them regardless because they see the English as a bigger enemy than trans whatever they class themselves to be.

This doesn't make sense. Until yesterday this bill had nothing to do with England or Scottish Nationalism, and it was still widely supported in Holyrood and by the public when polled (and when the elected a government who pledged to do this).
 
You see? That's the problem. I'm not a "cisgender" woman, I'm a woman.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you say. It must be hell for some. I've known a few Trans people during my life (there was a shop and online business called Transformation back in the early 1980s near where I lived), and I knew the guy who had started the business. He initially went through hell, newspapers all over the story.

But if any man tries to distort the meaning of "woman" then I'm up for a fight (not you by the way).
Indeed, and you know i wasnt changing the term "woman" to "cisgender woman" in order to apply it to all of "womanhood" :-) ....as @Mr Kobayashi says below, i used the term to give context and differentiate between trans and non-trans. Its not about changing or distorting the term for all women, its about giving context to those who are trans...i guess it better than saying "normal woman"


It's a prickly issue this, no doubt. Whilst I do think the Tories are sticking their oar in purely to score political points, I tend to side with the principle that this shouldn't be legally ratified. LGBT inclusivity should rightly be championed, and I think generally as a country we embrace this view. But letting someone change their gender with the flick of a pen? It seems a slippery slope that could descend to more uncomfortable changes. I mean, those advocating this are in effect changing the rules of science: that may seem hyperbolic, but these are biological truths from the dawn of time. You are either a man or a woman; that's a fundamental kids learn before they even look at numbers, nevermind learn to add and subtract. It's not something that should be messed with, in my opinion.
Now for me, this is pretty much the biggest misunderstanding of the whole issue. As i previously mentioned, my wife is a mental health practitioner in the NHS and has worked with quite a number of trans service users. We had a good chat about it last night, as i was still pondering the issue after my post.
There is a fear that there are people out there who wish to abuse this issue, and as you say, decide on a whim that today they are a man and tomorrow they are a woman etc. However, my understanding is that legislation is not looking to allow this, and for genuine trans people, this is not their experience either.
Those that my wife has worked with were given 6 years in order to "convince" the powers that be that they were legit in what they wanted to do.

She used an amusing analogy to explain a scenario:
"Imagine that you were born into a family with long, deep rooted support for Man Utd. All around you at home were images and talk of how great (normal) supporting Man Utd was. But deep down it didnt feel right, you couldnt connect in the way that your closest family did. You felt different to your brother, sister, mum, dad...aunts and uncles....friends too. For you, the only happiness you got was supporting and watching City. You'd watch and read about them in secret...adding to your isolation, sense of guilt and fear of judgment from your family and friends for daring to break the norm. Eventually, either your mental health deteriorates completely or you pluck up the courage to speak to someone about it. Initially you go to your GP or another professional who listens and empathises. After some counselling you feel empowered to "come out"...but the recommendation is that in order for it to become official you must live as a City supporter and maintain good mental health for 6 years to prove its what you really want. So you go home, you speak to your Mum...she's upset and hurt, but she loves her child and will do what she can to support you....you speak to your Dad and he hits the roof, how could you do this to him after all he as done, you are a disgrace to the family...your Mum and Dad fight, you are distraught at what you have done to the family. Your siblings are confused...how could you support City? Why would you do that to yourself....now their friends are going to laugh at them, they dont want to be seen with you. Whenever you leave the house there are curtains twitching as you walk down the street. People staring at you in the street, talking about you online...wishing you harm.
Now you really are alone...and you believe you have caused all of this just because you wanted to feel normal.

For a trans person this is a very real and very difficult situation to be in...and incredibly complex. The conversations i see online are far too simplistic. There are marginalised people who need protecting, need help and need love and support. Its not about imposing pro-nouns, or redefining whether YOU are a man or a woman....its about helping those people go through what can be a LONG and difficult process and making sure it really is the right thing for them. The process could and should also help people realise that in fact, its not the solution to their problems....as well as helping those who genuinely need it.
In order to help those people there has to be changes to legislation...legislation that will likely never effect you, but will absolutely help them.



Because nobody refers to women as cis-women unless trans people are part of the conversation.

No one is telling her that she needs to call herself cisgender or cis woman or that passport rules need to reflect cis gender and trans.

Almost no one believes that, or goes around talking like that, referring to themselves as cis unless the context calls for that.

She hasn't been robbed of anything by people using a term originally created by medical professionals to differentiated from non-trans and trans.
This.




It’s language designed to make you buy into the debate and language that surrounds trans issues and nothing more.

We don’t get to tell trans what they call themselves apparently yet they can apply labels to us?

I’m a man. Mackenzie is a woman and anyone saying differently can fuck off.
Indeed, you dont get to decide what trans people call themselves.....and they arent applying labels to you or deciding what you are called. Those terms are used to help with context within a given conversation.




What an incredibly long post for a Wednesday morning :-|
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.