[Redway]

I don't believe that 16's nearly old enough but from a prerogative-entitlement lens I don't think it's too unreasonable. I'm not the one to go looking for conflict and pick pointless arguments with strangers for no reason so whatever pronouns they'd rather we use in reference to them I'd just use. There are some people on this thread who would be legally opposed to anyone (even 18/21+ folk) from transitioning in any case if they had it their way so age isn't necessarily the determining deal-breaker here, not as far as I can tell.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Controversially I don't agree with 16 year olds joining the Army either.

For me I feel that 16 year olds shouldn't be allowed to do life altering stuff that they can't reverse if they regret their decision later on in life.

And hopefully women's safety won't be in danger, I honestly hope that's just scaremongering from the Media.

That's probably not as controversial as you think. Who's going to put a 16-year-old on front-line?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Redway

That's probably not as controversial as you think. Who's going to put a 16-year-old on front-line?

That is true tbf.

You just never know how people will respond though in 2022.

[arista]

[hijaxers]

Please let this be the end of Nicola Sturgeon, she's gone completely nuts. Government must stop this insanity.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by arista

Look how that creepy simp sees it as "losing"

as if its a game

vile

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

Look how that creepy simp sees it as "losing"

as if its a game

vile

The only thing being lost is women's rights.

Vile indeed.

[arista]

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Holiver_and_Ivy

The only thing being lost is women's rights.

Vile indeed.

How are women’s rights or generally anything other than the intrinsic right of teenagers to experimentation bound within certain limits being lost?

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

That is true tbf.

You just never know how people will respond though in 2022.

Yeah, screw them. Sometimes you’ve just got to say what you want to say and let people argue amongst themselves about how they want to react. But I can assure you that no-one’s going to bite your head off for pointing out that 16-year-olds are just a little too young to be on front line.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Redway

Yeah, screw them. Sometimes you’ve just got to say what you want to say and let people argue amongst themselves about how they want to react. But I can assure you that no-one’s going to bite your head off for pointing out that 16-year-olds are just a little too young to be on front line.

Thanks Redway, that's honestly reassuring.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Redway

How are women’s rights or generally anything other than the intrinsic right of teenagers to experimentation bound within certain limits being lost?

Because their right to woman-only spaces has been eroded that little bit more.

[bots]

there are giant loop holes in the legislation and sturgeon refused to have any amendments that would have gone a long way to calming womens fears. That, primarily, is why there is so much anger about the whole thing

[arista]

The Labour leader
is backing this move

Some in his Party are not


Times Radio and LBC debated it.

[arista]

Another Live Debate
on this, on LBC
now

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Tinsel Toes

Please let this be the end of Nicola Sturgeon, she's gone completely nuts. Government must stop this insanity.

They won't stop it though , and I agree ... she's lost the plot.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

That is true tbf.

You just never know how people will respond though in 2022.

Yeah 2022 is the egg shell Daffy duck era it seems.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by SantaslettertoMeghan

there are giant loop holes in the legislation and sturgeon refused to have any amendments that would have gone a long way to calming womens fears. That, primarily, is why there is so much anger about the whole thing

As usual she just ploughs ahead regardless.

[arista]

[arista]

Well Labour and SNP
back it.

Conservatives Will Not

[Oliver_W]

Has been blocked by the UK Government. Good. Didn't realise they cared about women.

Though the tin foil hat in me wonders if Sturgeon did this deliberately, so she could crow on about how they "need" independence, and that the UK Gov protecting women's rights is an affront to Scotland's agency, and blahhblahh.

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Has been blocked by the UK Government. Good. Didn't realise they cared about women.

Though the tin foil hat in me wonders if Sturgeon did this deliberately, so she could crow on about how they "need" independence, and that the UK Gov protecting women's rights is an affront to Scotland's agency, and blahhblahh.

I think Scotland needs a break from Sturgeon and her mental ideas. Well donr Richie.

[joeysteele]

Whatever anyone's thoughts on that vote in the Scottish parliament.

I cannot see at all how this Con government taking them on and going to block it, will help at all relations between the elected Scottish parliament and Westminster.

Likely even more division being brought into play again unfortunately

[bots]

i don't agree with the legislation passed in Scotland, but their legitimate parliament made the decision. Scottish people must be allowed to judge if it was good or bad and then judge their mp's accordingly. Now, al the scots will see is england interfering and the scottish parliament not held responsible for their actions

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i don't agree with the legislation passed in Scotland, but their legitimate parliament made the decision. Scottish people must be allowed to judge if it was good or bad and then judge their mp's accordingly. Now, al the scots will see is england interfering and the scottish parliament not held responsible for their actions

I doubt many people would object to safeguarding being upheld.