FREEDOM!!!! [4]

at least if you are a man you can fight back- Figg

{{ if you're a man it's not as simple as that. What if you say no, turn from the fight, ignore the insult? Intellectually you might be able to justify that, being the better man, not stooping to their level.
But on a fundamental level of maleness you know what really just happened, it's the two stags clashing antlers, and you're the one that's having to limp away defeated. You know it, he knows it. And it's so fundamentally hot wired in that no intellectual argument prevents it damaging the male psyche. And if it happens to you repeatedly, the cumulative effect can be depression, lack of self-confidence, or worse. There's no good outcome either way; fight or walk. Defending yourself is one thing, responding to a direct challenge from another man quite another.

And it's all these little pressure which affect a man's sense of who he is and where he belongs that can lead to so many mental health issues in men, and they are woefully unaddressed. Whereas, health care in general for women is far more prominent and better supported (ironically that might be partly the fault of men, as most of the NHS's history men ran it and prioritised women's health care as they were the ones who had the babies. The male instinct to protect the female as child bearer ahead of promoting health care for our own sex).}}

Hmm....just noticed the strong prevalence of gingers on this forum (3 by my count) - I wish I could say this place attracts misfits, but having red hair doesn't quite deserve such honor.

Mrs Figg wrote:

Lancebloke wrote:I didnt get jobs because of it. I was told plain and simple. You don't get to pick what is discrimination because it does r fit the narrative.

As I said, that was your choice, and it is no different from me going to work looking scruffy. That is not discrimination in any way, its the policy of your workplace. In certain jobs you have to look a certain way and dress correctly, its absurd to say that is discrimination. Nobody ever won a law suit for having long hair at work unless you are a Rasta and its your religion.

Picking and choosing again. Long hair is not in the dress code. Tattoos were but depending on who was running a particular building, not corporate policy.

Why is that not discrimination? Picking on a characteristic of someone for the sake of you not liking that characteristic is not discrimination? And because I could change makes that OK? Why the fuck should I have to change? Why can't a woman just know her place and look after kids or become a secretary instead? Because she shouldn't fucking have to, that's why!!!

Bullshit double standards that has gone from a time when women and minorities really had a point to creating a culture of victimhood so that we both can't address any remaining causes of inequality and at the age time blame others for our own failings... because it really must be someone else's fault.

Petty - I agree with most of what you just said too. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution with the sexes having to fulfil different roles by necessity has been turned on its head in the last 150 years and now we have phrases like "toxic masculinity" being thrown about by "progressives" as much as "wokeness" is a label hard-core conservatives throw at everything they don't agree with. Does it exist... yes. Is every masculine trait toxic...? Seems quite a lot is.

halfwise wrote:Hmm....just noticed the strong prevalence of gingers on this forum (3 by my count) - I wish I could say this place attracts misfits, but having red hair doesn't quite deserve such honor.

I have a ginger cousin and niece... managed to avoid that humiliation myself.

Lancebloke wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:

Lancebloke wrote:I didnt get jobs because of it. I was told plain and simple. You don't get to pick what is discrimination because it does r fit the narrative.

As I said, that was your choice, and it is no different from me going to work looking scruffy. That is not discrimination in any way, its the policy of your workplace. In certain jobs you have to look a certain way and dress correctly, its absurd to say that is discrimination. Nobody ever won a law suit for having long hair at work unless you are a Rasta and its your religion.

Picking and choosing again. Long hair is not in the dress code. Tattoos were but depending on who was running a particular building, not corporate policy.

Why is that not discrimination? Picking on a characteristic of someone for the sake of you not liking that characteristic is not discrimination? And because I could change makes that OK? Why the fuck should I have to change? Why can't a woman just know her place and look after kids or become a secretary instead? Because she shouldn't fucking have to, that's why!!!

Bullshit double standards that has gone from a time when women and minorities really had a point to creating a culture of victimhood so that we both can't address any remaining causes of inequality and at the age time blame others for our own failings... because it really must be someone else's fault.

Petty - I agree with most of what you just said too. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution with the sexes having to fulfil different roles by necessity has been turned on its head in the last 150 years and now we have phrases like "toxic masculinity" being thrown about by "progressives" as much as "wokeness" is a label hard-core conservatives throw at everything they don't agree with. Does it exist... yes. Is every masculine trait toxic...? Seems quite a lot is.

No, I am not picking and choosing. To say that having long hair is a protected trait like race, gender, disability or religion is ludicrous. Rightly people cannot be discriminated against because of age/race/sex/gender/religion/disability, but if anyone tried to add 'having long hair' to that list they would be laughed out of court. Its ridiculous. Not worth the thought really. Having long hair is a fashion statement, you have a choice about it, and you are still a young white male, therefore privileged, you don't have a knobbing choice about being in a wheelchair or Jewish.

Women have a choice to not apply for that job. I have a choice to pretend to be someone I'm not...

You are very much picking and choosing.

And you have no idea about what "privilege" I do or don't have.

ok

I see cause to insert this: the original Brunhilda and her counterpart.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/medieval-queens-daring-reigns-quickly-forgotten-180979246/

I can't quite decide if I should try to move the trans/feminist discussion to a new thread or just leave it. I do not agree with all that's been said - and in this day and age a trigger warning surely should be added - , but I do appreciate how thoroughly this thread has been norced while at the same time remaining fitting for the thread's title. Who's freedom it is, well... that's clearly up for debate.

Forumshire is probably not the ideal forum for such issues as its a difficult topic and could have gone ballistic, but I appreciate there was at least a debate and I was allowed an opinion. To be fair, I think we agreed to disagree on some points. Its very common to be cancelled or have a pile on if a person doesn't follow the current 'no debate' agenda in the UK, the States, and Canada, but I think the current no debate agenda sucks. But that's just me.

{{ The Scottish gov. gender recognition law s up for debate soon. The BBC have run a larg epoll to try to work out what folk think about it, and the results are interesting.
First though is the fact the law changes proposed have been in effect in Ireland since 2015, as far as I can tell without much fuss or any issues since. Something I wasn't aware of.

Ok, so before the poll results whats actually being proposed?

Well at the moment to be recognized as having changed gender a person has to 'apply to a UK gender recognition panel and typically must present a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
This is defined by the NHS as a "mismatch" between their biological sex (whether they were born physically male or female) and their gender identity (the way in which they see and describe themselves).
Applicants need to provide two medical reports, one from a specialist detailing their diagnosis and another listing any treatment or surgery they may have had to change their sexual characteristics.
They also must prove they have lived full-time in their acquired gender for at least two years - for example showing they have used a different name in official documents, or changed their gender on their driving licence or passport - and swear an oath that they intend to continue for the rest of their lives.'

The Scottish govt says this process is too invasive, long and complicated and stressful.
So instead they propose instead it would 'see applications handled by the Registrar General for Scotland, rather than the UK panel.
No diagnosis or medical reports would be required, and the period in which applicants need to have lived in their acquired gender would be cut to three months.
However they would still need to swear an oath about remaining this way for life - with it being a criminal offence to make a false declaration or application - and there would be a three-month "reflection period" before a certificate was issued.'

So thats what is on the table. Now to the polling.

Its headline is that taking all groups together 57% agree the process should be made easier.
But its when you break those down you get more interesting figures.
Among 16-35 year olds the approval figure jumps to a whopping 70%
And interestingly among women polled its 63%
In fact the only group not in favour, perhaps tellingly, are men who are only 49% in favour.

The figures also get interesting when you move from the general- should it be easier? - to the specifics of how? where the numbers are more mixed.

40% are in favour of self identification for trans folk, with 38% opposed.
There is no majority however for either cutting the wait time from 2 years to 5 months - 37% for 44% against- and in particular lowering the age of consent for this form 18 to 16 is not popular, with 31% in favour and 53% against.

In all cases there is quite a big figure of dont knows.

So what does it tell us? Simply that in general folk are sympathetic and believe changing legal gender should be a simpler less invasive process. But no one is very sure how to go about doing it or whats the best way.

The debates when they come up should be interesting. }}

Mrs Figg wrote:Forumshire is probably not the ideal forum for such issues as its a difficult topic and could have gone ballistic, but I appreciate there was at least a debate and I was allowed an opinion. To be fair, I think we agreed to disagree on some points. Its very common to be cancelled or have a pile on if a person doesn't follow the current 'no debate' agenda in the UK, the States, and Canada, but I think the current no debate agenda sucks. But that's just me.

Agree. The shutting down if opinions doesn't help anything. There are objectively wrong opinions that cannot be changed by shutting the down and there are subjective opinions that can be swayed, ir at least clarified, through discussion.

We don't have to agree, but we should try to understand and we should also correct our own thoughts and beliefs if they are not based in the available facts.

Also agree that a forum is not a great place to do that in. Text is too easy to be taken in a different spirit or meaning in which it was intended.

Petty - the stats are interesting. I wonder what level of education on the subject people have. I have personally seen so many variations of 'the science' that I have no idea what my position is on most of these topics.

{{ I think thats common Lance. For the bulk of folk its not something that they have ever had to think about or take a view on, as it effects directly less than 0.5% of the population who identify as trans.
If you take these polling figures it shows folk think there should be a change, but on the specifics of how in every poll you have 20-30% answering as 'don't knows'.
Clearly more public information is needed, and hopefully once they start debating in the Parliament the ins and outs of it that will be forthcoming. }}

As far as Petty's post goes, I don't know if we even have any legal protocols here in the US.

Wait time and age of consent are of course important. But the majority of the population is not qualified to say much more regarding details. Eldy may say something if so inclined, but beyond have sympathy and respect I can say no more.

{{ I think Halfy that is why the SNP have put so much emphasis on doing this in consultation with the trans community.
As to the legal framework here, well as I mentioned it's already present at a UK level, the SNP are basically proposing to streamline it because the trans community tell them the current process is complex and invasive. It's not even coming up with something new, or untested, as Ireland have had this system for trans folk since 2015.}}

Petty, the stats you posted show that in general people are in favour of helping trans people live without prejudice in society, and that is something I support too. But the argument has been cleverly framed in the same way that BLM and other social justice movements in which put upon minorities are being damaged, its normal for people to want to support these minorities in their struggles, its seen as 'the right thing to do' therefore anyone saying "wait up one darned minute, there are problems with this" are immediately classed as either right wingers, trolls, bigots, and transphobes. Its right vs wrong and it seems simple doesn't it. The rights of trans people vs the bigots, and that is where young people have been sucked into the wanting to do the 'right' thing', the binary simplicity of trans rights are human rights, trans women are women no debate. Therefore the Scottish gvt is trying to do the right thing, but that is because it has been captured by Stonewall, as have most institutions in the UK. Stonewall once championed LGB rights and once those rights were largely won they turned around to find future battles and funding. They latched on to trans rights as this being the next social justice warrior battle, because who can argue against it without sounding like a bigot? nobody, that's why people are silent, any hint they don't agree with Stonewall can crush them, destroy their careers and result in being physically harassed by aggressive TAs outside conferences. Just spend two minutes in the LGB Alliance and you will see that gay people are fighting for their right to exist. AGAIN. A lot of institutions and universities have now removed themselves from Stonewalls poisonous influence, a lot of academics have spoken out, and people are starting to fight back. If we don't women's sport will be a travesty as in the case of Lia Thomas, who lets face it, is still a man, and exposed his dick in the female changing rooms, opportunists will invade the Girl Guides, as has already happened, a trans Girl Guide leader was found on FB in S&M fetish gear brandishing a rifle, and he had care over female children!, so not only sport, girls organisations, women's prisons, rape shelters, and shop changing rooms, all female places where they should be safe. If self ID is as easy as buying a car, if the person hasn't been seen by a doctor, if people can just say 'I am a woman' then what's to stop me from saying 'I am a man' and walking into my local rugby club and demanding to use the male changing rooms, and this doesn't even cover the appalling child abuse of puberty blockers and 'top surgery' for children who dont even have the legal age of consent. So they cant drive but they can chop off their breasts, madness. fucking nuts. But this is just my opinion obvs.

{{ The debate does not touch things like same sex changing rooms, or any of that yet - this is purely on the process for being legally recognised as having changed gender. It already exists in the UK it's just a long and probably expensive, and by all accounts a stressful process. This debate is about that process and how to improve it for trans people to make it quicker and less stressful.
The question of sports etc is yet to be debated or even proposed by the SNP government and is no part of this bill.

edit add- what is being proposed is in line with what Ireland has had since 2015- 'Since July 2015, transgender people in Ireland can self-declare their gender for the purpose of updating passports, driving licences, obtaining new birth certificates, and getting married.' It does not give the right to use female only facilities. Its just about how the law recognises folk.}}

Figgy - you are right though.

Most people outside of some fringe organisations want to make sure that people of all ways if cutting a cookie are treated with the same respect as anyone else.

I think the problem is that people are so frightened to go against the narrative of a very vocal set of people who (from reading many comments boards and watching videos etc) do not speak for everyone else that they see are in their community.

I think there are two potential sets of lovers here. Women who are now having their identity erased after working so hard to get it recognised are one.

The other are people in these communities themselves. Why is it that with the most support they have ever had, suicide and depression rates are still huge which suggests something else is going on.

Why are there reasonable numbers of people that regret their transformation... specifically those that go through body transformation? Why are we suggesting allowing this for younger people whose bodies are being flooded with hormones and is generally a confusing time for most of the teenage world?

This has real impacts on many areas of society and we should understand that before making laws that could end up with people going to jail.

Also, from the perspective of free speech and the appropriation of speech... the whole area of hate crimes is a mine field. Especially when terminology seems to change on a weekly basis.

Equality should mean just that.

{{ There are many valid questions to raise and consider, its a difficult topic, but this bill is purely about how the law recognises a change of gender for the purpose of legal documentation.

I also think it's difficult for folk who aren't trans to get their heads around, which is a problem as Trans people make up such a small percentage of the population that most folk not only aren't directly involved but are unlikely to even know someone it does directly involve. This means decisions made about trans folk are most likely going to be made by a majority with no personal insight into the issues. Which is why the trans community has been invited since the beginning to give their views.}}

As they should be.

What are the ramifications of changes to legal documents? Does it have a knock on impact to anything else?

I assume there is a reason why Ireland have the rules that they do. I assume it isn't as simple as a field on a piece of paper, but I genuinely don't know.

{{ Ireland has the rules for same reasons as the UK does, with the same outcome. The only difference is in the process. The UK version is longer, demands more medical stuff and is more invasive, and to many trans people stressful apparently. When Ireland came up with their version they simply came up with a version that was less stringent in its proofs and demands and less invasive. And this is what the SNP are proposing for Scotland.
It effects legal stuff- if a transperson who transitioned from male to female then marries a man they would on the marriage certifiate be regarded as a woman. On passports, driving licences etc they would be counted as a woman. Its for that sort of purpose.
At this stage this has nothing to do with changing rooms, sports, or any of that.
It is purely about how the change is legally acknowledged by the state.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Ireland has the rules for same reasons as the UK does, with the same outcome. The only difference is in the process. The UK version is longer, demands more medical stuff and is more invasive, and to many trans people stressful apparently. When Ireland came up with their version they simply came up with a version that was less stringent in its proofs and demands and less invasive. And this is what the SNP are proposing for Scotland.
It effects legal stuff- if a transperson who transitioned from male to female then marries a man they would on the marriage certifiate be regarded as a woman. On passports, driving licences etc they would be counted as a woman. Its for that sort of purpose.
At this stage this has nothing to do with changing rooms, sports, or any of that.
It is purely about how the change is legally acknowledged by the state.}}

If it is really just about that then, whatever. I assumed there must be some legal knock on effects of being recognised as male vs female.