[user104658]

Originally Posted by bots

All it requires is social norms to be returned to what they were 20 years ago, before the world turned to ****

I agree-ISH things weren't perfect but in the places where it was good it was good enough, which sounds defeatist, but the quest for perfection can generate a backlash that ultimately makes things far worse for everyone - I think that's fairly clear to see. That's a difficult conversation to have with people though. "I know thing aren't perfect for you, I know you want them to be better, but pushing too hard and too fast will have the opposite effect".

It's a hard thing to accept, too.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by bots

All it requires is social norms to be returned to what they were 20 years ago, before the world turned to ****

So no blood donation from gay men? No 2007 Equality Act? No adoption for same sex couples in Scotland? No gay marriage? No strides towards legislations to ban conversion therapy?

Sorry, did we ask for too much with the above? Yikes!

[Swan]

Originally Posted by BBXX

So no blood donation from gay men? No 2007 Equality Act? No adoption for same sex couples in Scotland? No gay marriage? No strides towards legislations to ban conversion therapy?

Sorry, did we ask for too much with the above? Yikes!

I don't think anybody is saying that.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Swan

I don't think anybody is saying that.

Nope

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Swan

I don't think anybody is saying that.

Returning to "the societal norms of 20 years ago" would remove a lot of advances that came about in the last 20 years. These advances are achieved through societal pressure and change in societal attitudes.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

So no blood donation from gay men? No 2007 Equality Act? No adoption for same sex couples in Scotland? No gay marriage? No strides towards legislations to ban conversion therapy?

Sorry, did we ask for too much with the above? Yikes!

On reflection I think "20 years ago" is extreme, the issues really weren't apparent until maybe only 5-7 years ago, when there started being an expectation of "unquestioning self-ID" and established gender ideology being completely rewritten. That's not to say that everything was perfect - just that the direction that was taken at that point was, ultimately, detrimental. There's no real argument that it wasn't to everyone's detriment. Where we are now is awful, precarious and (socially) yes I would say worse than 20 years ago.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

On reflection I think "20 years ago" is extreme, the issues really weren't apparent until maybe only 5-7 years ago, when there started being an expectation of "unquestioning self-ID" and established gender ideology being completely rewritten. That's not to say that everything was perfect - just that the direction that was taken at that point was, ultimately, detrimental. There's no real argument that it wasn't to everyone's detriment. Where we are now is awful, precarious and (socially) yes I would say worse than 20 years ago.

I think there is merit to say society as a whole is more at war with one another than 20 years ago and that does come from both sides of the political spectrum - anger and vengeance from the left and scaremongering and facism from the right. Most people however sit somewhere in the centre - left or right of it - and get on just fine with those around them.

I think social media makes things worse and emboldens everyone from all sides, however I think that extreme rhetoric is not present with most day-to-day in real life.


However, from a LGBT perspective, things are better than 20 years ago when we weren't able to adopt or marry or give blood.

However that is not to say I think tides aren't turning. I do think there are, from certain corners, of as you mentioned above, perceptions that LGBT people have "asked for too much", but the very notion of that being a legitimate concern is gross. The world is not straight people's to govern and decide how much rope they give us.

They don't get to throw down a ladder and expect LGBT people to stay on the 2nd step while they stand on the 4th, and then cry when we also want to be on the fourth alongside them.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Christine Jardine Lib Dems 🔶
@cajardineMP


I've taken time to consider the EHRC interim guidance and can find nothing
reasssuring except the fact that it's 'interim'. Still too many unanswered
questions and too many uncertainties. The Government needs to take the lead
and provide clarity


-----

Also Lib Dems who receive sizeable donations from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, makers of puberty blockers

[Crimson Dynamo]

Author Andrew Doyle:

If any proof were needed of the power accumulated by activists, consider how
many companies and institutions have claimed they’ll ignore the Supreme Court
ruling on sex in the Equality Act.

Such is their narcissism and entitlement that they genuinely think they’re above
the law.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Times Newspaper Poll:

The sad unelectable Greens are backing the 4%

[bots]

Laws are really created around the paths of least friction in society. The moment other considerations are brought into it, there is always trouble. What we have these days is an abundance of considerations created by all sorts of conflicting pressure groups. It never works out well

[Crimson Dynamo]

Scottish Football Association set to ban "transgender women" competing in
women's football

The move comes after the UK Supreme Court announced that the Equality Act's
definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It means that from next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game in Scotland. (madness it ever was tbh)

The BBC reports that the new policy will apply to all competitive football in
Scotland, including the grassroots game from under-13s and over.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Scottish Football Association set to ban "transgender women" competing in
women's football

The move comes after the UK Supreme Court announced that the Equality Act's
definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It means that from next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game in Scotland. (madness it ever was tbh)

The BBC reports that the new policy will apply to all competitive football in
Scotland, including the grassroots game from under-13s and over.

Interesting

Wasn’t Chelsea’s star striker a bloke ?

I saw her/him/them racing through the opposition defence a few weeks ago with players bouncing off her /him left , right and centre backs !

They looked around 6’ and walked like a docker

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Interesting

Wasn’t Chelsea’s star striker a bloke ?

I saw her/him/them racing through the opposition defence a few weeks ago with players bouncing off her /him left , right and centre backs !

They looked around 6’ and walked like a docker

Apparently in the UK there are 30 Transwomen that play in the women's Football pyramid, and they're all amateur players.

So I don't think that Chelsea player is Transgender.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Scottish Football Association set to ban "transgender women" competing in
women's football

The move comes after the UK Supreme Court announced that the Equality Act's
definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It means that from next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game in Scotland. (madness it ever was tbh)

The BBC reports that the new policy will apply to all competitive football in
Scotland, including the grassroots game from under-13s and over.

The bathroom law...

[bots]

my cousin was over 6ft tall and she used to arm wrestle with men down the pub. Women come in all shapes and sizes, just like men do

[Crimson Dynamo]

Currently the English FA do allow male sex trangender women to play against women but Id imagine this will now change

[bots]

contracts etc will be allowed to expire so i wouldn't expect immediate changes

[Livia]

Trans women banned by the FA from the women's game from 1st May. Finally, common sense prevails.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

Trans women banned by the FA from the women's game from 1st May. Finally, common sense prevails.

On SkyNewsHD they said it comes in on June 1st


It's on their ticker


They are only following the Judge.

So it had to be done

[Niamh.]

This is a good article

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...A8rxPFvTVH6JhA

Stonewall’s policy of ‘no debate’ on trans rights was a mistake
The LGBTQ+ rights charity’s former head Ben Summerskill and the parent of a trans-identifying young person respond to coverage of the recent supreme court ruling

Both Gaby Hinsliff, in her typically thoughtful piece (If Britain is now resetting the clock on trans rights, where will that leave us?, 18 April), and your correspondent who says “All sensible, two-way discussion of this topic has been prevented” (Letters, 22 April) highlight the risks that both trans people and many other individuals and organisations face from continuing uncertainty over an important area of public policy.

Sadly, a significant contribution to the prevention of sensible, two-way discussion of this sensitive issue was Stonewall’s 2015 decision to adopt an approach of “no debate” – online, on public platforms and in the broadcast media. This has now had huge reputational and financial consequences for the charity, where dozens of staff have since faced redundancy.

A core message for charities and all advocates for social justice from this regrettable situation might be that campaigning by diktat rather than persuasion is very rarely successful. Winning folk over to your position while recognising and addressing their anxieties, while very hard work, is usually a better way of securing legislative and social progress that can be embedded and lasts. If you decline even to enter a debate, you rarely win it.
Ben Summerskill
Chief executive, Stonewall, 2003-14

I am the parent of a trans-identified young person who has nuanced views of the debate on sex and gender (Editorial, 23 April). The reason the supreme court ruling feels like such a threat to the trans community is because for the last decade activists have misled them about the existing law, staked everything on the complete erasure of sex as a meaningful category in society, and framed any dissent as bigotry, transphobia or worse.

It has been catastrophic for a generation of trans-identified youth to have been misled into thinking that their wellbeing is dependent on everyone in society colluding in a pretence that biological sex can simply be overridden by gender identity, irrespective of context. The consequences are all too apparent in the distressed response to what is a compassionate legal ruling that balances the rights of trans people (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) while identifying the specific contexts where sex will be relevant too.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

This is a good article

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...A8rxPFvTVH6JhA

Stonewall’s policy of ‘no debate’ on trans rights was a mistake

That's what I've been saying for years and one of the most frustrating parts of the whole debate - so often met with people saying "but there's not evidence that..." when there has been a clear, hard-line and often very aggressive long campaign to stop any research or study being done that would yield evidence either way.

I've even always said my stance on the whole thing could change IF anyone could provide robust evidence for why decisions were being made that seemed accurate and reasonable ... but it's impossible to get to the truth when you have people attacking anyone who dares to look for it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

That's what I've been saying for years and one of the most frustrating parts of the whole debate - so often met with people saying "but there's not evidence that..." when there has been a clear, hard-line and often very aggressive long campaign to stop any research or study being done that would yield evidence either way.

I've even always said my stance on the whole thing could change IF anyone could provide robust evidence for why decisions were being made that seemed accurate and reasonable ... but it's impossible to get to the truth when you have people attacking anyone who dares to look for it.

Yep. It seems like a lot of common sense was ignored and peoples concerns were dismissed as "phobic" It isn't a good strategy to just shut people down by trying to shame or threaten them, that will only work for so long before people say no

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yep. It seems like a lot of common sense was ignored and peoples concerns were dismissed as "phobic" It isn't a good strategy to just shut people down by trying to shame or threaten them, that will only work for so long before people say no

Yes plus a culture of "any request for compromise = bad and the enemy" and the inevitable outcome of that was not a successful forcing of no compromise... it was an increasing tendency for people to not bother trying to find one.

[arista]

In todays Daily Telegraph.


[Shops and leisure centres can question
transgender people about their
biological sex before letting them
use changing rooms, the equalities
watchdog has said.
Those who appear to be lying can legally
be refused entry as long as they are not
asked in a rude or offensive manner,
according to updated guidance from
the Equality and
Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Gyms and hospitals could legally ask
people to provide birth certificates
or passports to prove their biological sex.

The watchdog said trans people could
legally be shut out of anywhere where
women were likely to be in a state of undress.

Last month a Cabinet minister insisted
there would be no “toilet police”
stopping trans women from using
women’s lavatories.

Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister,
said the “logical consequence”
of the Supreme Court ruling was that
everyone should use the facilities
of their biological gender.]


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...hanging-rooms/