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

[metalblue]

Just a bit of a shame that extreme examples like this detract from the legit trans community desire for recognition - just because a rapist doesn't fancy their chances doing a stretch on the nonce wing.

The main problem as I understand it for those wishing to trans is not the process nor the guidelines but the time it takes for them to start treatment or process. 2 years seems perfectly reasonable, but not when it takes someone 4 years, or more, to begin.

That’s what should be sorted. It simply just isn’t funded well enough.

 

[blueparrot]

Unfortunately until Scotland gets independence it very much is a case for the UK government. Until then there are matters exclusively reserved for the UK, such as issuing passports. Funny though, the UK government had said they wanted to work with the Scottish government to work out some of the issues, whereas Sturgeon immediately starts shouting her mouth off about seeing them in court.

Well it’s a devolved matter. Here’s the thing though , did the UK government / parliament vote on overruling a Holyrood parliament vote or as it seems to me was it decided on the whim of Rishi Sunak with no vote or consultation ? Seems to me an elected parliament voted and is being overruled by one man in a position he wasn’t even elected to. Can’t see any right in that whatever your views of the issue.

 

[metalblue]

Well it’s a devolved matter. Here’s the thing though , did the UK government / parliament vote on overruling a Holyrood parliament vote or as it seems to me was it decided on the whim of Rishi Sunak with no vote or consultation ? Seems to me an elected parliament voted and is being overruled by one man in a position he wasn’t even elected to. Can’t see any right in that whatever your views of the issue.

You’re missing the wider issue. It’s a devolved right to hold a vote on this. The UK then have to consent to those votes. In this case it’s the practical impacts it has when considered against the law in the rest of the UK. Having a vote in Parliament wouldn’t have magically made those issues disappear. Had the law been to make it 20 years instead it would have met the same challenges.

Ignoring the McDonald’s nature of this new law. As soon as someone steps over the border they’ll have completely different rights in the same country if we are misaligned as they won’t be recognised as their new gender, their passport will say their birth gender, they’ll run the risk of being arrested going into a ladies toilet, and so on and so forth. I can only imagine how that would make them feel.

It’s got nothing to do with big bad Westminster riding roughshod over Scotland, although we all know those with a vested interest will play that card. I do find this sort of politicking somewhat disgraceful. Acknowledge the issues it would create and work towards solving them in a diplomatic way not inside a court room.

 

[Coatigan]

Ignoring the McDonald’s nature of this new law. As soon as someone steps over the border they’ll have completely different rights in the same country if we are misaligned as they won’t be recognised as their new gender, their passport will say their birth gender, they’ll run the risk of being arrested going into a ladies toilet, and so on and so forth. I can only imagine how that would make them feel.

It’s got nothing to do with big bad Westminster riding roughshod over Scotland, although we all know those with a vested interest will play that card. I do find this sort of politicking somewhat disgraceful. Acknowledge the issues it would create and work towards solving them in a diplomatic way not inside a court room.

That's nothing new though. There have been plenty of examples of different laws on different side of the border, long before this parliament existed. And there will always be, union of unequal parts or no union. Like the English historically crossing the border to marry at a younger age, or the Scots nipping down for a fag indoors.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The main problem as I understand it for those wishing to trans is not the process nor the guidelines but the time it takes for them to start treatment or process. 2 years seems perfectly reasonable, but not when it takes someone 4 years, or more, to begin.

That’s what should be sorted. It simply just isn’t funded well enough.

You're right it isn't funded as well as it should be.

But you're wrong when you state there isn't a problem with the process and the guidelines. At present dysphoria is treated as a medical condition and the route to a gender recognition certificate is through medical professionals.

This is from the NHS website
........................

Who can apply​

You can apply if you meet all of the following requirements:

• you’re aged 18 or over
• you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK
• you’ve been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years
• you intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life

If you do not have a gender dysphoria diagnosis​

You might still be able to apply, but only if you meet all of the following requirements:

• you currently live in England, Wales or Scotland
• you were in a marriage or a civil partnership on 10 December 2014 and living in England or Wales, or on 15 December 2014 and living in Scotland
• you had been living in your affirmed gender for at least 6 years before those dates, and you have evidence of that
• you have had gender affirmation surgery

If this applies to you, contact the Gender Recognition Panel admin team to find out how to apply. It’s a different process to the one described in the rest of this guidance.
......................

What Scotland wants is self ID and that's the core aim of the transgender rights movement.

The major goal of transgender activism is to allow changes to identification documents to conform with a person's current gender identity without the need for sex reassignment surgery or any medical requirements whatsoever. So process and guidelines is very much the problem. The Scottish government wants gender self-identification, Westminster does not.

So improving the existing system is not the answer, because the transgender rights movement don't want the existing system improved, they want it binned in favour of self ID and so does Nicola Sturgeon.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The main problem as I understand it for those wishing to trans is not the process nor the guidelines but the time it takes for them to start treatment or process. 2 years seems perfectly reasonable, but not when it takes someone 4 years, or more, to begin.

That’s what should be sorted. It simply just isn’t funded well enough.

I think the first year is basically counselling and psyc/med evaluation to make sure it's deffo the correct course of action for the individual?
Tbf if I'd have chopped my cock off at 18 and thrown it away I'd be in a much better financial position now.

 

[Coatigan]

I think the first year is basically counselling and psyc/med evaluation to make sure it's deffo the correct course of action for the individual?
Tbf if I'd have chopped my cock off at 18 and thrown it away I'd be in a much better financial position now.

It's never too late.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It's never too late.

It is for my bank balance :-(

 

[metalblue]

That's nothing new though. There have been plenty of examples of different laws on different side of the border, long before this parliament existed. And there will always be, union of unequal parts or no union. Like the English historically crossing the border to marry at a younger age, or the Scots nipping down for a fag indoors.

I do take your wider point that difference exists. I can’t think of anything on this scale however.

As far as I know it’s only legal in England to be married in Gretna at 16 because we can marry at 16 in the UK, we just need parental permission so it circumvents that requirement but it’s still legal to be married. If the law changed in UK to be married at 18 then that would create a bit of a challenge, I’d strongly argue that should the UK government want to raise it to 18, then it should require the consent of all nations - for all the same reasons.

 

[Coatigan]

I do take your wider point that difference exists. I can’t think of anything on this scale however.

As far as I know it’s only legal in England to be married in Gretna at 16 because we can marry at 16 in the UK, we just need parental permission so it circumvents that requirement but it’s still legal to be married. If the law changed in UK to be married at 18 then that would create a bit of a challenge, I’d strongly argue that should the UK government want to raise it to 18, then it should require the consent of all nations - for all the same reasons.

While we are on that, it is changing to 18 in England and Wales in February I believe, has already been passed just needs to come into effect. Remaining as 16 in Scotland. The difference however existed since the 1700s, it only overlapped for about 80 odd years.