FREEDOM!!!! [4]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Every single 'version' you just listed is listed as a threat. The one group you forgot save as a sort of amendment to your list of the horrors of trans folk is the vast majority of trans folk- people who feel they are the wrong gender and wish to change it to have peace of mind and body. To be themselves and live as such. The largest group, the group who are a threat to no one. You dont care about them all you see is a threat when you hear the word trans, you just made that perfectly clear. One bad apple, or more, exists in every walk of life in every type of persons regardless of gender, colour or anything else- you cannot do as you do and use that as an excuse to villify and deny and punish all. Thats unfair, illogical, cruel and immoral. Its no different to old justifications for racism or sexism.}}

As you obviously haven't read my post,

"Every single 'version' you just listed is listed as a threat." Petty

"There are trans teenagers who may have self identity issues, they may have autism, they may have dysmorphia, they may have depression, or they may be gay and have homophobic parents. There are so called 'trans children' which is the biggest con trick of all because children believe in Father Christmas and want to be fairy elephants when they grow up."

I am clearly saying the threat is mental health issues, the threat is to the people who are not helped and just affirmed as trans without specialist help?

again you didnt read my post,

"The one group you forgot save as a sort of amendment to your list of the horrors of trans folk is the vast majority of trans folk-" Petty

I just said that.

"But the majority are adults who just want to live their lives and don't want all the toxicity."

You need to explain 'punish and vilify'. What punishment exactly? trans people already have the same rights as anyone else. Nobody is electocuting their balls in basements. The real punishment is giving kids disastrous hormones and cutting off their genitals. It is obvious that you dont know anything about the trauma of de-transitioners. have you read any of their testimonies? do you know what happens to kids groomed into irreversible gender transition. Its appalling, and without seeing a doctor or psychologist these kids are buying their hormones online. have you heard of Keira Bell who sued the Tavistock, and many more who are ignored or threatened for speaking out against the gender cult. Vilify, what does that mean? to be gender critical and question or just spout the propaganda? Vilify means being intolerant, I have repeatedly said adults can identify how they choose, but there is a payment to be paid by other people.

{{ Youre 'one bad apple is enough' argument is the same argument used historically against any social change, including homosexuals and people of colour. It is currently being used by the far right against immigrants and by the far left against police. Its bigotry plain and simple. As an argument it always has been and not bedfellows Id be comfortable beside.

As to punishment- if you are gay in our society and you wish to announce the fact, or get married, you can. If you are hetrosexual in this country and you wish to say so and get married you can.
If youre trans and wish to say so you, never mind get married, you have to go through a degorating system to prove you are, including pointless and invasive medical proof.
That is not equality, its punishment and if you want to talk mental health its mentally damaging to those who have to undergo it, which is precisiely what all the consultation over the gender law change found and why its being, rightly changed. Or perhaps you think homosexual and hetrosexual people should also require a medical procedure and diagnosis to prove they are the orientation and gender they claim? }}

Hear hear.
It's the same old tune, and it's always ok because you are only protecting the women and children from the evil deviants.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Youre 'one bad apple is enough' argument is the same argument used historically against any social change, including homosexuals and people of colour. It is currently being used by the far right against immigrants and by the far left against police. Its bigotry plain and simple. As an argument it always has been and not bedfellows Id be comfortable beside.

As to punishment- if you are gay in our society and you wish to announce the fact, or get married, you can. If you are hetrosexual in this country and you wish to say so and get married you can.
If youre trans and wish to say so you, never mind get married, you have to go through a degorating system to prove you are, including pointless and invasive medical proof.
That is not equality, its punishment and if you want to talk mental health its mentally damaging to those who have to undergo it, which is precisiely what all the consultation over the gender law change found and why its being, rightly changed. Or perhaps you think homosexual and hetrosexual people should also require a medical procedure and diagnosis to prove they are the orientation and gender they claim? }}

"If youre trans and wish to say so you, never mind get married, you have to go through a degorating system to prove you are, including pointless and invasive medical proof".

You have no idea what 'the system is'. You are just parroting the trans activists who think that 3 months is adequate proof of transgenderism. Why is it degrading? what exactly are they made to do? talk to a psychiatrist? explain why they think that tired old stereotypes about women wearing heels and makeup makes you a woman? They never wear boiler suits or Doc Martins do they, its all stereotypical hyper female frills and sequins. Is that what being a woman means? that is a superficial and stereotypical social construct, its meaningless. What about countries with people who both wear long robes, what is the difference between the genders in that case? Nobody has ever said that trans people cant be trans, not in the UK, the US, Canada or Australia and most of Europe don't mind at all. Being homosexual or straight is not a dysphoria therefore they don't need a medical certificate. Also gender ideology is regressive, it puts gay people at risk as trans activists insist that people should be same gender attracted not same sex attracted. This has meant that lesbians are called transphobes and 'sexual racists' if they refuse to date and have sex with biological men calling themselves women. So all you are doing is virtue signalling from a point of ignorance and allowing the cancelling of gay people. Not very progressive.

{{ Actually the 'system' is outlined in the gender recognition act as it currently stands, the changes being proposed in Scotland and already in place for the last seven years in Ireland are being made precisiely because all the evidence taken, from trans folk themselves and from medical experts indicate that the medical part of it is intrusive and causes distress to those who have to undergo it, as well as the simple fact its not required of any other group which makes it inherently unfair.

In fact your very use of the word dysphoria in relation to trans folk is out dated and so is the idea that being trans is in anyway a mental health issue-

'The update to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has reclassified gender identity disorder, or identifying as transgender, in terms of sexuality, not a “mental disorder”.  The UN health agency now had a “better understanding that it was not actually a mental health condition”.
On 25 May, WHO approved a resolution to remove “gender identity disorder” from ICD-11 and created a new chapter dedicated to sexual health.
The reclassification will “reduce the stigma” while ensuring “access to necessary health interventions”.
Moving the disorder into WHO’s new chapter for sexual health will also help lift discrimination, a major barrier to accessing prevention services, HIV testing and treatment and care.
“We expect that this reclassification will impact very positively the wrong perception that some forms of gender diversity are pathologies, or sickness, and that it will facilitate access to better health care,” said Victor Madrigal-Borloz, Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and Dainius Pῡras, Special Rapporteur on the right to health.
The UN experts welcomed the “major breakthrough” and called on States to “review their medical classifications and adopt strong proactive measures” to eliminate the social stigma associated with gender diversity.' Denying the existence of diversity or lifestyle choices “leads to violence, including so-called ‘corrective rape’ and ‘conversion therapy’, and to forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary treatments and procedures to ‘normalise’ sexual attraction or human bodies”.

That you view trans folk as being mentally ill is part of the problem. That is the same justification countries like Saudi use to persecute and prosecute homosexuals.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Actually the 'system' is outlined in the gender recognition act as it currently stands, the changes being proposed in Scotland and already in place for the last seven years in Ireland are being made precisiely because all the evidence taken, from trans folk themselves and from medical experts indicate that the medical part of it is intrusive and causes distress to those who have to undergo it, as well as the simple fact its not required of any other group which makes it inherently unfair.}}

First of all, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 means that all trans people can get a Gender Recognition Certificate where the issue of a full certificate provides legal recognition of the transsexual person's acquired gender which can be used for passports etc. Therefore, it is quite sufficient for all purposes and the self ID law is totally redundant and useless and actually threatens the safeguarding of vulnerable women and children.

Please show me where I say that dysphoria is a mental illness. It's a dysphoria which can be helped in some cases by psychological therapy. Nobody is forced into medical transition, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody 'has' to undergo it, showing that you dont understand the process. Also interestingly no evidence was taken from biological women.

{{ Dysphoria is recognised as a mental health term, which is why WHO dropped its usage and its officially classified now as “gender incongruence” in order to remove the stigma of it being mental health related. Previously when it was classified as a dysphoria it was classified under mental health, it no longer is.

In order to get a Gender rec certificate as the law currently stands involves several things which are unfair- it takes too long, it requires a medical assessment not required for anyone else and in Scotland its not in line with the bulk of things you can choose to do with your life at 16, such as get married, start a family, join the army or vote.
It is not self ID, in that a person cant just say 'today Im a woman' and thats that, they still need to go through a process, it just wont involve a medical assessment and only take 3 months instead of the current 6. The law only changes the time it takes and removes the need for what is a pointless and intrusive medical assessment. It makes NO changes whatsoever to any other aspect of the laws, it doesnt change any existing womens rights, access to womens spaces or requirements regards medical procedures, no matter how often you try to falsely claim or imply it does.}}

So you are in favour of children mutilating their bodies without any doctor or psychologist determining whether other things are going on in their lives. You and other so called 'trans allies' are endangering safeguarding of children, whereas bizarrely the named person scheme would have taken all power away fro parents to decide what happens to their children this scheme also takes power away from parents to decide what happens to their kids body. The SNP allows children of 16 to stop puberty, get their breasts chopped off, get their genitals butchered and medicalize them for life. How progressive.

{ The bill under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with surgery, it is SOLELY about how the law recognises a change of gender by reducing the time it takes, removing the medical bit and lowering the age from 18 to 16 in line with lots of other stuff you can do at 16 in Scotland. Its purely about the process of legally changing gender. It has nothing to say about safe spaces, surgery or any of that. And its not law yet it stil has to go throughthe stage 2 reading including vote son all 156 propsed amendments. So at this point we dont evenknow exactly what the finished law will be.
As to the named person scheme, it was a proposal in response to failings in childcare, and after lengthy consultation it was decided it would not go ahead, and it was what a decade ago? Odd thing to bring up now and it had nothing to do whatsoever with trans issues. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{ The bill under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with surgery, it is SOLELY about how the law recognises a change of gender by reducing the time it takes, removing the medical bit and lowering the age from 18 to 16 in line with lots of other stuff you can do at 16 in Scotland. Its purely about the process of legally changing gender. It has nothing to say about safe spaces, surgery or any of that. And its not law yet it stil has to go throughthe stage 2 reading including vote son all 156 propsed amendments. So at this point we dont evenknow exactly what the finished law will be.
As to the named person scheme, it was a proposal in response to failings in childcare, and after lengthy consultation it was decided it would not go ahead, and it was what a decade ago? Odd thing to bring up now and it had nothing to do whatsoever with trans issues. }}

"It has nothing to say about safe spaces"

well maybe it should. This one was in a womens refuge.

https://transcrimeuk.com/2019/02/02/katie-dolatowski/

Also, it's going to be really surprising when the data shows that 'women' are suddenly becoming pedo rapists.

https://transcrimeuk.com/2022-convictions/

{{ Incidents of individuals who abuse a system, any system will always exist. They exist in teachers who abuse pupils, police who abuse members of the public (the very recent case of the MET officer who committed murder comes readily to mind), priests who abuse their congregation, politicians who abuse the system for personal gain, hetrosexual men who abuse their partners, hetrosexual women who abuse their partners, gay men who prey on other gay men, lesbians women who do likewise and the list goes on and on. Examples of all are readily available but fortunately in each group a minority. This is the price that has necessarily to be paid for individual freedom and always has been. If you want freedom it is an inevitable if regrettable occasional result of it, all the law and society can do is to provide safeguards as appropriate and as need shows. The alternative is a police state where everyone is watched and monitored all the time and there are no individual freedoms.

Incidentally I checked out the first person on that links list only to find - ' Dixon does not have a gender recognition certificate' so would have no beairng whatsoever on the matter under discussion, the changes to the gender recognition bill. They committed their crimes without it featuring. And again I could provide just as prolific a list of indivduals of hetrosexual men abusing women, hetrosexual women abusing men, gay men abusing other gay men, lesbians who have been violent to their partenrs or a list of pedos in general and so on. By your logic because of these individuals exisiting all hetrosexuals are a threat, all gays are a threat ect and all should be made illegal.}}

Let me cast this in a different context and things may make more sense.

There's a cliff on the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland that overlooks a wide valley.  A train used to run in the valley below and people would hike up to the cliff, in fact a watch tower was built up there years ago so people could enjoy the view.  But that was a century ago and the watchtower was burned down decades after the train stopped coming.

It was taken over by the hang gliding community, and we levelled the foundations and launched off there.  People would come from all over to watch, including those hiking along the old train line below, long converted to a walking trail.

About 20 years ago some young woman was trying to take her picture: her face with the valley in the background.  She backed up until she fell over the ledge and died.  Her family sued, and I know about this because I was one of the officers of the hang gliding community.  Fortunately we had insurance, and could hire a lawyer.  He came up and got the case thrown out because it was clear and obvious danger, but that's not the point.

The point is that by the reasoning that every now and then a person could get hurt would mean that a fence should have been built along that cliff long ago.  But it never was and won't be because it's crazy to base actions based on rare occurrences.  Yes, people will be stupid, but you shouldn't go planting poles and rails on every natural cliff just because the occasional death will occur.  If it wasn't a natural spot then maybe you should, but you shouldn't destroy a place because of rare things that shouldn't be happening.

Do you really want to build that damn fence just because of the occasional stupid visitor?

You need to legislate towards the reasonable.  Doesn't happen that often, I know.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Incidents of individuals who abuse a system, any system will always exist. This is the price that has necessarily to be paid for individual freedom and always has been. If you want freedom it is an inevitable if regrettable occasional result of it, all the law and society can do is to provide safeguards as appropriate and as need shows. The alternative is a police state where everyone is watched and monitored all the time and there are no individual freedoms. l.}}

The whole point is that this is entirely avoidable if children and women are safeguarded. If a husband abuses the wife at home, and she goes to a refuge and she is abused again by a man claiming to be a woman, then that is a deliberate failure of the law. Talking of which a Scottish rape crisis centre is a man who lied about his gender to get the job, I wonder why. This adds to the problems it allows predators to game the system because a government has caved in to activists and ignored the best interests of its most vulnerable. Its all very well for you to say that this happens a lot, and its everywhere, it is, but allowing more, even one more victim is appalling. The whole point of rape crisis centres and women's toilets and changing rooms is to keep women away from men.

{{ The issue of access to what areas, safe spaces and the like are not anything to do with the current bill under discussion, which is just about how the law goes about recognising a change in gender.
The existing laws in Scotland already have provision in them for trans people to be denied access to such spaces. The failure therefore when it does occur lies not with the law but with those charged with interpreting and implementing the existing laws. If a refuge chooses for whatever reason to give access to a trans person to a womens refuge that is the choice of that refuge, it is not only not enforced by law but the law gives the refuge the option of rejecting the person on safety grounds. These safeguards predate the current bill and the bill does not change any of it-

'The Bill does not make changes to public policy or to the 2010 Equality Act (which is UK wide legislation passed in Westminster), which includes a number of exceptions which allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This means that single sex services are protected as are single sex employment rights and health services. Those exceptions are important and the Scottish Government supports them. This Bill does not make any changes to those exceptions.'- gov.scot

So if you feel the provisions are not robust enough in this regard then your issue is with the Westminster passed Equality Act of 2010, not with the Scottish governments current gender recognistion bill which makes no changes to these aspects of the law as its not what this bill is about.}}

My beef is the SNP self ID allowing 16 year old children to change gender after 3 months, order hormones online because they haven't seen a doctor and end up chemically castrated, infertile and scarred for life.

{{ Is making such a choice at 16 any more or less serious than choosing to start a family? Incidentally not sure why you single out the SNP here when you can already get hormone treatment at 16 in England as it is, though it is largely a final choice after other treatments are offered, according to the NHS England website- 'Your child or teenager will be seen by a multidisciplinary team..the team will carry out a detailed assessment, usually over 3 to 6 appointments over a period of several months.
Depending on the results of the assessment, options for children and teenagers include:
family therapy
individual child psychotherapy
parental support or counselling
group work for young people and their parents
regular reviews to monitor gender identity development
referral to a local Children and Young People's Mental Health Service (CYPMHS) for more serious emotional issues
a referral to a specialist hormone (endocrine) clinic for hormone blockers for children who meet strict criteria (at puberty)
Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty.- NHS England

Note than in England this applies not just to 16 and over but to 'children' including those yet to reach puberty- whereas in Scotland its somewhat different regards treatment-

'In Scotland a young person needs to be at least 16 to be started on gender affirming hormones.'- NHS Scotland

So its actually somewhat stricter here than in the English NHS. Not only that if you are referring to the current bill reducing the age to 16 for gender recognition that is not related to hormone therapy or at what age it can be adminstered at all, only to what age the law can recognise a change of gender. So your ire at the SNP seems somewhat misplaced, you shoudl be directing far more at the English system seems to me.}}

If the argument is that 16 is too early, I can get behind that idea, though it's difficult to settle on the "right" age. If the argument that people are going to go through 3 months of hoops and legal changes of status just so they can harass children in the lady's loo, then the argument is vaporous. Go with the first one.

{{ So now youre using as evidence the 'comedian' who presents on GB News?! I feel youre starting to scrape the barrel here Figg.

Halfy Im unsure if 16 is the right age or not myself, its tricky as for some things like hormone treatment the timescale is as much natures as it is any legal entities. But at 16 in Scotland you can get married, same sex marriage included, start a family, join the army and vote, we already entrust our 16 year olds with a lot of adult responsibilities and choices so I see why its set at that age. The current law under consideration has yet to finalise the age however, it is currently the 'proposed' age for it but we wont know until the final reading and vote on the law after all the amendments have been discussed and voted on (and the age limit is understandably one of the things under consideration as part of that process) what the actual final law will settle on in this regard is currently unknown.}}

Its not 'evidence' its comedy. Plus the joke about Dundee made me laugh.

slippy slope, cant say it surprises me.

{{ Its very common in public buildings to have a ban on the wearing of political clothing or slogans, or on match days football colours are usually banned from most places including clubs and pubs and have been my whole life. In this case it was deemed to have broken the rules, a woman wearing a suffrogate sash to a debate on gender reform, I can see why itd be taken as a political gesture (Im still not convinced it wasnt and the law got it right the first time), then when the woman appealed it was looked at again and decided it was not on the list of bannable stuff so an apology was made. Storm in a teacup.
Try wearing an irish sash into Westminster! }}

{{ Well the Supreme Court has spoken- Scotland has no right to hold a referendum without English consent. Which England refuses to grant.

It finally confirms what many of us have long known, that the 'Union' of the United Kingdom is a nonvoluntary union in which there is no democratic or legal way to leave. That no matter how the people of Scotland vote or how often they will never be given an out option.
This is not only very bad for the idea of this being a democratic country, but its also dangerous, in the words of John F kennedy "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

The Scottish people have returned an SNP government for the last 14 years, the current Scottish Parliament has the largest mandate between the SNP and Greens for an independence referendum in the Parliaments history. The Union is not a voluntary body of equals but a snare in which once entrapped there is no leaving.

The SNP response to this is to make the next General Election in Scotland a one issue election- independence or not to try to force Westminsters hand through shame. I am not sure they have shame, certainly not this current crop of Unionists.
Even Thatcher of whom I have no love whatsoever said "As a nation, they [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far, they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union.  Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure."

This view of the Union seems almost quaint in the current climate. But if there is no legal or democratic way to leave then there will be violence inevitably from those who see Scotland as being forced into a Union it no longer desires to be a part of. If this anti-democracry attitude prevails in England in spite of all there will be unfortunate consequences. And the worst part is the man standing in the way of democracry is Sunak, a PM who was not elected by the people, has stood at no elections and was made PM without any mandate at all from the people voted in by a handful of Tory MP's.
It is also interesting to note statements made by the Tories very recently in their arguments for leaving the EU and to wonder why they dont apply when it comes to Scotland-
"No country that values its independence, and, indeed, its self-respect, could agree to a treaty which signed away our economic independence and self-government" - Boris Johnson, PM, 25th July 2019.
"There is no other Treaty in the world that I'm aware of where a Sovereign Nation undertakes to join up and can only leave when the other side says so." David Davis MP, former Brexit Minister, 10 March 2019
"Ultimately, membership of any union that involves the pooling of sovereignty can only be sustained with the people's consent." Theresa May, PM, Tuesday 4th December 2018

Funny how they can say one thing in one context and deny its very meaning in an other with the very next breath.}}

Well, Scotland didn't join the Union via democratic means. That sort of muddies the water of the right to leave via democratic means.

Well, the last time there was a democratic vote, they votes to stay in the union so even if it wasn't originally it has been since.

How often there should be a vote and who should be allowed to vote and what happens after the vote.... that is really the problem.