FREEDOM!!!! [4]

If I understood this even remotely correctly, here's a short summary of the Norvegian way. 

Legal gender can be changed at the age of six, if parents want to. Pubertyblockers can be given before the age of 16. Gender confirming treatment can be started after the age of 16. This can only be started at one hospital in Oslo. To get in there, your have to get your doctor to send you to a psychiatrist who then can send you to a group of specialists for more evaluation. Possibly there's another evaluation after that too. Then maybe you can get treatment. Treatment must start in Oslo. No operations allowed untill you're 18 (and legally an adult).

Amarie is Norway overrun with predatory trans folk attacking your women and children at every opportunity?

Let me think... no.

'Legal gender can be changed at the age of six, if parents want to.'- Amarie

{{ Here it will not be until 16.

'Pubertyblockers can be given before the age of 16.'

Here it will remain unchanged by this new bill, so 16 for medical treatment.

'your have to get your doctor to send you to a psychiatrist'

If I am reading that right thats in relation to getting medical procedures? If so its same here, its part of the normal consultation procedure for sucjh treatments. It will however no longer be required to get psychiatric report just to apply for the gender recognition certificate however, in line with current WHO recommendations.


So on the whole I'd say the Norway model goes further than the Scottish one does in terms of removing restrictions. Did it cause this sort of fuss in Norway when the changes were first proposed Amarie? Was all your press full of headlines about how it gave free reign to predators to attack women and children? Because I suspect this is far more any excuse to undermine the SNP and Sturgeons popularity than it is based in any sort of reality around the Bill at hand and the fuss here comes from that more than anything else.}}

Transitioning children at 6? Well if that is acceptable all further debate is useless. I give up. Done. Peaked.

Crikey!

Let me think... no. - Amarie

Transitioning children at 6? Well if that is acceptable all further debate is useless.- Figg

{{ Given Norway's rules go further than those proposed by Scotland, which are quite minor alterations to the exisiting legislation, and its clear from Amarie that in the past 7 years since they passed their legislation the Norway model has not in fact led to the mass endangerment of women and children or the sudden invasion of all womens safe spaces by predatory men pretending to be trans, why Figg do you think the Scottish law will have such a result? }}

Between 6-16 years old, the parents can apply to change the child's legal gender. Both parents must agree. If one parent disagree it can still be accepted if it is in the best interest of the child. (I assume a lot of documentation is needed). After 16 you can apply yourself. Some children know from an very early age that they are the wrong gender. 6 as the lowest age sounds about right as this is when school starts. So for the very few it applies to 6 seems fair. 

I got the impression pubertyblockers could be used after puberty has started to slow things down and give more time to decide if more treatment is the right thing. 

You can apply for treatment before you are 16. But treatments- what did they call it -gender confirming treatment won't start before that. I assume you've got the documentation from various doctors already if you have felt like this for a long time. 

I sadly don't know more than surface facts about any of this. 

I can't quite recall that the discussions were as brutal as it seems it is in Scotland now, but that is probably me skipping hate posts and articles to avoid getting furiously angry. 

It's a very heated debate and still going strong here too. Too stickt, too mild, too much, too little.

{{ I think if Scotland had moddelled its trans policy after Norway, given the ruckus kicked up over the minor chages proposed, folk like Figg would have self combusted! }}

{{ Sorry Lance I somehow missed your earlier post.

'- by and large, people should be able to live as whoever they want so long as it doesn't impinge on other people's right to live how they want.'

That pretty much sums up the entire point of the bill.
'
- trans people should should have the same legal protections as any other person, so long as it doesn't impinge on the legal protections that others have.'

This is why the legal age change to 16, bringing it in line with everyone else. And why all the bill changes is how to get a certificate, not what it does.

'- 16 is too young (in my opinion) to make irreversible, life changing decisions such as gender surgery. I haven't seen the stats on this in a while but I believe there is are a substantial amount of people that have transition regret and suicide rates are just as high which suggests we are missing at least some of the problems and possibly making some worse.'

The change to 16 only affects when you can apply for a legal document, it makes no changes to the law regards when you can get surgery or any of that- it all remains as was.

'- we need to be very, very clear on what the legal change of gender means to other people, basically my first 2 points. Trans men and women just cannot have the same life experiences as males and females and this needs to be recognised just as much as male and female cannot claim to understand the perspective of someone who does not belive they were born in the right body.'

Thats outside the scope of this bill and comes under the Westminster passed Equality Act, but this is why the bill makes no changes to the abilities of bodies, such as refugees to refuse admission to trans person if they believe there are reasonable grounds to do so- that is how the law has been to this point across the UK, and it is unchanged by this bill which only deals with how you get a certificate, not what it alows you do afterwards.

'- There are a lot of religious people in this debate. They can honestly shove their doctrines right up their overly puckered starfish. This whole thing needs to be based on thorough research of the biological and psychological sciences (and possibly some others). '

Agreed. This is why I thought the tweet from one of the Scottish labour MSP's following Starmner making similar accusations about womens safety as Figg has been was so spot on. The MSP said of Starmers points that they were "unhelpful and ill informed", as unlike her and all the other Scottish MSP's he had just jumped on at the end of the debate, "He didn't sit in the committee, he didn't sit in our chamber, he didn't have a vote and he didn't follow the evidence like we did."
That last part in particular is crucial, a lot of MSP's were on the fence 7 years ago about this, the majority voted for it in the end after hearing all the evidence over that time period. Evidence is crucial.}}

{{ Seems the Tory reason for invoking section 35 and blocking the trans bill might not be genuine concern afterall- what a surprise!

Scotlands Social Sec has written to the Scottish Sec of State at Westminster with a few questions-

"Your letter provided scant detail on the reasons for the order, and like everyone else we had to wait until publication late on Tuesday afternoon of your policy statement to see any substantive explanation.
We will respond in full to the points raised in the appropriate forum which, given the approach taken by the UK government, is now likely to be through the courts.
You have said that you hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward which respects devolution and the operation of UK legislation.
This seems utterly incompatible with your approach of waiting until after the bill has been passed to implement a power of veto never used before, with no warning communicated about the use of that power or prior attempt to engage on the detailed issues now raised.
Please would you clarify how the Scottish government can work constructively with you under these circumstances.
You have said that you are open to consideration of an amended bill, yet the reasoning you have set out includes a fundamental objection to the existence of two different systems within the UK.
This is in direct contradiction of of the UK government's position as set out in its 2018 consultation on gender recognition reform, which stated a commitment to mutual recognition of certificates issued in different parts of the UK across the UK."

And the response?

'A UK government spokesperson said the Scottish secretary would respond to Ms Robison's letter in due course.'

Or in other words they wont ever mention any of this again as it shows up how much this is purely a political move and how little it has to do with the welfare of the trans community or women or children for that matter, who are mere pawns to be exploited in their attempts to undermine Sturgeon, the SNP and growing support for independence. }}

{[ I think the timeline of events for this being a political move is becoming clearer.

In 2018 the SNP put forward their plans for changes to the gender regocnition certificate.
At the same time in Westminster, the Tory govt under May also propsed to make the exact same changes, including the age reduction. This includes a pledge that different parts of the UK can and should if they wish have different rules.

But them May gets ousted from the party, and Boris coming in to replace her and in order to 'get Brexit done' flushes the party of moderates and middle ground Tories and instead replaces them exclusively with members from the far right of the party who are genrally opposed to any further changes regards gender and are opposed to the whole notion.
The Westminster plans for trans recoognition are not offically dumped, but quietly shelved.

For the next 6 years the SNP hone the bill, consulting in cross party select committees who take evidence from all the involved parties, and which includes two extensive periods of public consultation. At no point in these 6 years does Westminster raise any complaints or claim any issue of it crossing into reserved matters.

I fully believe that the reason Westminster made no objections during this entire period of the bills formation was because they genuinely had no objections. The decision had not yet been made to use this issue as a political football, that comes next.

Brexit happens and its a disaster, then covid hits and its an even greater disaster. In Scotland Sturgeons handling of the pandemic grows her popularity even more and that of the SNP, polling starts to show a constistent pro-independence majority month after month.

The Scottish Government passes the gender legislation with cross party support.

Only now does Westminster take the decison to use a previously unused last resort power to block the will of the Scottish Parliament and prevent it becoming law and setting up a fight using trans folk as the weapons.

I think the combination of the Tory party losing its moderates under May when Boris came in and it being filled with those from the far right of the Tory party and the polling showing suport for independence has led to this more than anything.
Its clear there are no real objections to it on a technical level as May proposed much the same thing, we know its not really about having two different systems in the Uk as May's government pledged that would be the case and this was Tory policy until the hardliners took over the party. Its not the first time in recent memory this Tory government has tried to undermine the Scottish government or flex Westminster superiorty over the Scottish Parliament, the referendum issue being another.
There is a clear pattern of behaviour, and a clear pattern of thinking behind it coming from the Tories right flank, which is most of the Tory party these days. }}

whoops! it didn't last long before reality hit mad ideology.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/26/nicola-sturgeons-trans-law-disarray-rapist-climbdown/

{{ Its yet another non story trying to use a unconnected incident to attack the recent legislation on trans. But it has nothing to do with the gender bill. What happened is what would have happened either way and all it showed is the system works.

They were remanded at the womens prison (ie while awaiting sentence so held on their own away from other prisoners) and while assessed for risk- they were determined to be a risk and will not be housed at a womens prison.

This is all SPS (Scottish prison service) routine and what they always do and had nothing to do with the government or any recent legislation.

'Nicola Sturgeon said her government had given no "formal direction" to the prison service on where Bryson should be held.
She added: "This individual case is not about whether they are trans or not, in this individual case this is a person who's been convicted of rape, so this individual is a rapist and a sex offender and that is what's important."
Speaking at First Minister's Questions in the Scottish Parliament, Ms Sturgeon said she agreed that it was not possible to have a rapist within a women's prison.
The first minister said any prisoner who posed a risk of sexual offending was segregated from other prisoners including while a risk assessment was carried out.
She said: "There is no automatic right for a trans woman convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in a female prison even if they have a gender recognition certificate.
"Every case is subject to rigorous individual risk assessment and the safety of other prisoners is paramount."

An SPS spokesman said decisions on where transgender prisoners were located were made "by a multi-disciplinary assessment of both risk and need".- BBC Scotland

In this case that assessment concluded they were a risk and despite being trans would not be held in a womens prison. You should be happy Figg the system seems to working just fine and as its supposed to. }}

whoopsie! and yet another violent man pretending to be a woman. But this time they let the stalker of a 13 year old child in the womens estate.

https://news.sky.com/story/fresh-trans-prisoner-row-as-girls-stalker-approved-for-move-to-womens-jail-12797405

{{ This story originated in the Daily Record, its a, um, telling piece of journalism. It has no sources, doesnt offer a single one. Not even a 'insider', or 'source close to the prison service'. Not a thing.

It says - 'The Record can reveal that volatile Tiffany Scott has been rubber-stamped for transfer to a jail that aligns with her chosen gender. '

But doesnt say from whence this information hails. Certainly not from the SPS who are in charge of it and have not yet made any official announcement and say they havent made a final decision yet.

The very next paragraph is equally interesting for its wording- 'It is understood that the transfer is still planned.'

Understood by whom? Its doesnt say. And still planned? So not actually something thats happening yet just in the planning?

How odd.

And look just as the last story was completely unconnected to the gender bill that just passed but got mentioned anyway so too does it here- 'The decision to move Scott coincided with the passage through the Scottish Parliament of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill' just a pity that has nothing at all to do with this case.

And if you look at the Sky version of the story, which just reports the Record story, you linked too Figg it ends with - "SPS is reviewing their policy on managing transgender prisoners in partnership with the Scottish government and that process is nearing completion."

Nearing completion. So the rules by which the SPS will make its decision regarding this prisoner, which the Record story admits are merely plans are not in fact in place yet.

I fully suspect this person will not end up in a womans prison and this, just like the last, oh I've lost count now, dozen or so such anti-trans stories that have cropped up in the tabloids in the last month, will turn out to be nothing at all again.
Whats worst about the shameful use of this subject to attack the SNP is the equating in the public mind of trans=predator. Further marginalizing and justifying attacks on an already vulnerable group.}}

Very disappointed in 'Tiffany'. He didnt even bother to wear clothes. At least Isla wore a wig to hide his Mike Tyson face tattoo.

{{ As assumed, it was another non story. The SNP have just released the draft of their plans for trans prisoners and here it is-

'No transgender person already in custody with a history of violence against women will be moved from the male to female estate
No newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner with any history of violence against women (including sexual offences) will be placed in the female estate.
Any exceptional cases will require the approval of Scottish ministers.'
"As the first minister pointed out last week, we must not allow any suggestion to take root that trans women pose an inherent threat to women. Predatory men are the risk to women. However, as with any group in society, a small number of trans women will offend and be sent to prison. Therefore, I hope that the measures.... will offer reassurance in the ongoing ability of the prison service to manage trans individuals and ensure the safety of all prisoners."

So no, trans folk with a history of violence against women will not go to women's prisons.

More good news for you to celebrate Figg- the law is working just fine.
As I said above this was just yet another cooked up story by the right wing media to try to undermine the SNP at the expense of the trans community. Utterly disgraceful.}}

But if 'trans women are women' 'for all legal purposes' that means they are putting women in male prisons. Isn't that transphobic.

{{ No its just a normal risk assessment, same as for any prisoner. If it was a dangerous prisoner who was male in an all male prison theyd still be risk assessed and if necessary isolated from the main prison population.
As Sturgeon said a few days ago quite clearly- "There is no automatic right for a trans woman convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in a female prison even if they have a gender recognition certificate. Every case is subject to rigorous individual risk assessment and the safety of other prisoners is paramount."

You should be welcoming all this Figg, thats two cases the right wing have tried to throw up as examples of women being put in danger by trans prisoners, in both cases its only shown that safeguards and guidance to ensure women are protected are in place and working as they should be to safeguard women. }}

{{ Interesting back and forth on the trans issue in Scottish Parliament First Ministers Questions. The Tory leader, Douglas Ross ( considered in general to be a full rubbish bag awaiting emptying) tried to trap Sturgeon into admitting, or not, that the person claiming to be trans found guilty of rape was a woman or not. A ridiculous semantic question with no actual relevance as soon as you stop and think of it.
However, as is usual when allowed to speak, Sturgeons answer was a good one-

"I don't think Douglas Ross and I are disagreeing here, because what I think is relevant in this case is not whether the individual is a man or claims to be a woman or is trans. What is relevant is that the individual is a rapist. That is how the individual should be described, and it is that that should be the main consideration in deciding how the individual is dealt with. That is why, of course, the individual is in a male prison, not in the female prison, these are the issues that matter."

Mr Ross went on to read a quote from one of Bryson's victims, who said: "I don't believe he is truly transgender. I feel as if he has made a mockery out of them using it. As far as I'm concerned, that was to make things easier for himself. I'm sure he is faking it."

The first minister responded: "My feeling is that is almost certainly the case, which is why the key factor in this case is not the individual's claim to be a woman. The key and in fact only important factor in this is that the individual is convicted of rape - the individual is a rapist - and that is the factor that should be the deciding one in decisions about how that prisoner is now treated."
Ms Sturgeon went on to say it was "really important" to "look seriously" at the issues thrown up by the Bryson case, adding: "But that in doing so, we bear in mind two things. Firstly, as I've said, that we do not further stigmatise trans people generally - I think that is important - but secondly that we don't cause undue concern amongst the public."
Ms Sturgeon added that there were exemptions under the current UK equality law that..that enabled trans women to be excluded from some single sex spaces. - BBC

Naturally Ross did not have anything to say to that. Mind you Sturgeons final two pleas wont work either- the Unionist parties are only too happy to paint all trans people as predators and an inherent danger specifically to try to cause concern among the public- thats the whole point and if trans folk get beaten up, attacked, mocked or simply viewed as sinister elements of society as a side effect they could not care less, so long as they think it hurts the SNP and erodes their dominant position in Scottish politics. }}

oh dear its kicking off in Scotland. First Saint Nicola makes a tit of herself, now the Greens are kicking out a violent Tweeting TA, and Edinburgh University TA has been charged of an assault on a woman. Lots of aggression, but then, they are full of testosterone.

First Saint Nicola makes a tit of herself- Figg

{{ In the eyes of who? Trans phobes? The latest polling, conducted last week shows that support for independence holds steady at 54% in favour  and that it increased by nearly 2 percent points over the previous poll conducted only 1 week earlier- so why the difference?  - the poll showing an increase in support was conducted just after Westminster blocked the Scottish trans law changes.

On voting intentions polls show that the SNP are on 53%, which for the record is 13% higher than if you take every other Scottish party and combine them )tories are on 12% for example).

As to the rest, Figg why dont you just admit you dont like transwomen, dont think they are real, think they are all predators, and that they shouldnt have equality- as your arguments boil down to if a trans person does something wrong, all trans people must pay the price. Yet you dont apply this to any other gender, why not?

I also find it odd that you, as a woman, would resort to right wing slurs and mockery of the First Minister, such as calling her 'saint Nicola.' I find it odd you'd wish to join the right in tearing down a hugely successful women, who for her entire tenure has been head and shoulders in poll after poll, vote after vote, election after election the most popular politician in the UK for well over a decade now. }}

{{ As should be expected by now the right wing press and the BBC news are still running half-truths, downright untruths, and deliberate withholding of information to try to keep the Nicola hates women story going, every day so far for weeks I should add in every single newspaper and mainstream news station, yet they haven't for some reason given prominence, or in the case of most, any acknowledgment of the commissioned report into the transfer of trans prisoners that was done as a result of this and published 2 days ago (in fact to find it on the BBC you have to go to Scottish politics section, then a story in the middle of the page with a misleading headline 'trans prisoner policy change after trans row' and amazingly the article does not include the actual findings of the report or the two crucial bits in it, at all, they don't mention the quote below anywhere or the report by name so you cant easily find it, instead they focus solely on a very minor, ineffectual change in the policy I will discuss below- I had to go the Scottish Prison Service site myself and find the report. No bias in the BBC! HA!)

The two pertinent parts of it are ;

'I have fully considered the content of the urgent case review report and at the outset I can offer the following assurance:
at no time during this period were any women in SPS care at risk of harm as a consequence of the management of the individual and SPS policy was followed during each decision making process and risk assessment'- SPS review

In fact the only thing it recommends, and I can see why stupid as it is, is that a prisoner on remand will be housed in a prison matching their biological birth until they have been risk assessed, rather than as was they can be remanded at a jail of their lived in sex until the assessment is done. I say its stupid because its just a balm for the hysterical right, in practise, as the above report makes perfectly clear, it doesn't matter if they are held in a building in isolation in a man or women's prison, they are isolated anyway until assessed. This is standard for ALL prisoners.

So lets replay this 'trans prisoners' scandal with the actual facts at hand.

A person claiming trans status was found guilty of committing rape against two women. They were sent to prison on remand to await risk assessment and sentencing, The risk assessment found, rightly, that as the crimes were violent and sexual and targeted women the prisoner would be transferred to a male prison for their sentence. The prisoner was sentenced and sent to a male prison.

Thats it. Thats all that happened. Weeks of hysterical fervoured anti- SNP and in particular a very nasty anti-Sturgeon campaign whipped up by the dominant right wing press in the UK and with no regard for the well being of trans folk they are using for ammunition over that. Nothing at all happened. All that actually happened here is the system worked exactly as it was intended to. But the right wing press have tried very hard to spin it differently and deny the facts purely because Sturgeon remains popular, the SNP remain dominant and support for independence has been growing and Westminster are worried they don't have a case to make for the Union that will wash any more so taking down the popular figurehead of the movement is their last resort.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:First Saint Nicola makes a tit of herself- Figg


As to the rest, Figg why dont you just admit you dont like transwomen, dont think they are real, think they are all predators, and that they shouldnt have equality- as your arguments boil down to if a trans person does something wrong, all trans people must pay the price. Yet you dont apply this to any other gender, why not?

I also find it odd that you, as a woman, would resort to right wing slurs and mockery of the First Minister, such as calling her 'saint Nicola.' I find it odd you'd wish to join the right in tearing down a hugely successful women, who for her entire tenure has been head and shoulders in poll after poll, vote after vote, election after election the most popular politician in the UK for well over a decade now. }}

seriously? you counter my argument about misogynists by calling me a misogynist?

Absolute tosh. I have explained this a thousand times. I have no beef with trans women, and I think the hysteria coming from certain people on the left that discussing and debating means genocide for all trans people is frankly ludicrous. I certainly think they are 'real' but they are not actually of the other sex. You cant deny reality. The point I am making is that the most aggressive and violent of them have been given power by idiots who realise too late that these people are violent misogynists who hate gay women in particular. Why is it that the head of organisations in Scotland are men cosplaying as women, who send out violent tweets, lie about their gender to get a job, and actually physically attack any women who refuse to wheesht. Its embarrassing because here are many trans people who just want to get on with their lives without these closet incels ruining it for everyone.

As for Saint Nicola, she is a  danger to women. This suits her political agenda, she gives not one toss about transpeople.

{{ You have an obvious beef with trans women Figg, you have countered every move made by the Scottish government to bring the law in line for them with everyone else, by saying they are predators, they are a threat to women and women's spaces, and now you have the unbelievable gall to claim Sturgeon doesn't care about trans folk? After folk like you have vilified and made life hell for the ordinary trans person, increased bullying, violent and abusive attacks against them and assaults - all up on the back of the sort of shite you are spouting. You are physically harming people.
Sturgeon has spent over 8 years of campaigning, legislation and championing a cause that has far more votes to lose in it than there is to gain. This has always been a matter of principle, equality and trying to do the right thing for her, at personal cost and endless personal abuse from folk like you. And yes your attacks on Sturgeon often are abusive and if they came from a man their sexism would be blatant, you don't get a pass on your abuse just because you are a woman.
A report out a couple of days ago found if your poor in Scotland you are 600 quid better off than if your poor in England, because the SNP have always focused on helping those most in need, its why they pay the bedroom tax on behalf  of the poorest so they dont have to, its why single mothers get more money than in England, these sort of causes, actually striving to help folk, make society fairer and more equal whilst remaining in a capitalist market system is why the SNP after more than 10 years in power command over 50% of the vote still. The SNP's stance or dedication on such issues is not in question or doubt. The biggest risk to Sturgeon is removal from within the party, precisely because of her dedication and commitment to this cause and it not being a vote winner. Sturgeon isn't and hasn't ever done this for the votes, she is a good politician but she is a good one because she acts on her beliefs and principles for what she believes is right and fair, but in cases like this where she puts her own commitment and name to a cause thats an uphill battle against a hostile press and media its not for votes. Boris is a good comparison, he too is a good politician, in that he makes bold and calculated political moves, but he does so for personal gain and personal status, he helps no one and cares for no one in his political moves, they are about self-preservation. And thats why the Tories after 10 years in power now sit on 25% of the vote, whilst the opposition Labour scrape 45% and the SNP after more than a decade in power sit at 53% of the vote.

As to reality being denied- by who? Antitrans folk if you ask me. No one says trans women and biological women are the same thing, thats why you have trans as a legal position and trans folk can still be denied access to women's space, like refuges and female prisons, as this case clearly shows.

Again in the case of the trans prisoner nothing happened. At all. I would very much like you to answer two questions, the above one you ignored- Why dont you apply the same rules to other genders as you do trans? And who was ever put at risk during the prisoner process? }}