|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 19, 2023 15:37:58 GMT
On that note we shouldn’t bother to lock our doors at night. A determined burglar just needs a brick to break a window. Hi Bentley That's worth thinking about but my instincts say they're unrelated points. Not locking up increases the risk marginally but I doubt the new legislation actually increases the risk of male assault on women. It's common in Europe for example to have mixed sex saunas, with full nudity and there is no evidence that these places harbour greater risk for women. If I think about it, women seem to me to be in most risk from their partners followed by walking alone at night. The dangers from this or the 2004 uk act, seem way over blown. My instincts say that men who claim to be women invading hitherto women only spaces are nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form comparable with mixed sex saunas . My instincts are correct . |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 19, 2023 15:47:34 GMT
Hi Bentley That's worth thinking about but my instincts say they're unrelated points. Not locking up increases the risk marginally but I doubt the new legislation actually increases the risk of male assault on women. It's common in Europe for example to have mixed sex saunas, with full nudity and there is no evidence that these places harbour greater risk for women. If I think about it, women seem to me to be in most risk from their partners followed by walking alone at night. The dangers from this or the 2004 uk act, seem way over blown. My instincts say that men who claim to be women invading hitherto women only spaces are nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form comparable with mixed sex saunas . My instincts are correct . Hi Bentley No, you only think you're correct. It's your instincts as you admitted. Anyway I checked it out. The top areas for women being assaulted were 1. By their partners 2. In schools 3. In other educational establishments 4. Car parks 5. Pubs or restaurants The thing you're worrying about doesn't even appear, even though the uk 2004 act has given them power to do so for nearly 20 years. Even given that you're correct and there is a significant risk, what is THE ADDITIONAL risk that the Scottish act does over the 2004 act.? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 19, 2023 15:55:32 GMT
My instincts say that men who claim to be women invading hitherto women only spaces are nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form comparable with mixed sex saunas . My instincts are correct . Hi Bentley No, you only think you're correct. It's your instincts as you admitted. Anyway I checked it out. The top areas for women being assaulted were 1. By their partners 2. In schools 3. In other educational establishments 4. Car parks 5. Pubs or restaurants The thing you're worrying about doesn't even appear, even though the uk 2004 act has given them power to do so for nearly 20 years. Even given that you're correct and there is a significant risk, what is THE ADDITIONAL risk that the Scottish act does over the 2004 act.? Nope you only think that you are correct. Until the appropriate laws are passed and there is a critical mass of trans men allowed into women’s hitherto private spaces then will will not know . Your disingenuousness is noted. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 19, 2023 16:11:14 GMT
Ask yourselves this: What is the value of Scotland’s devolved power if Westminster can summarily overturn a bill passed by a democratically elected legislature empowered by the Scotland Act, a bill that was six years in the making and which passed with a quite staggering two thirds cross-party majority?
The word devolution means the transfer or surrender of power from one group to another. Was power ever really devolved to Scotland in the first place if Westminster reserved the right to trample on and overturn ScotGov’s decisions?
If Westminster’s meddling in an area of devolved government is not improper, then their definition of devolution is askew. Power cannot be devolved if it still resides with Westminster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 19, 2023 17:38:06 GMT
Ask yourselves this: What is the value of Scotland’s devolved power if Westminster can summarily overturn a bill passed by a democratically elected legislature empowered by the Scotland Act, a bill that was six years in the making and which passed with a quite staggering two thirds cross-party majority? The word devolution means the transfer or surrender of power from one group to another. Was power ever really devolved to Scotland in the first place if Westminster reserved the right to trample on and overturn ScotGov’s decisions? If Westminster’s meddling in an area of devolved government is not improper, then their definition of devolution is askew. Power cannot be devolved if it still resides with Westminster. Yes - but only on devolved issues. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 19, 2023 18:37:25 GMT
Hi Bentley No, you only think you're correct. It's your instincts as you admitted. Anyway I checked it out. The top areas for women being assaulted were 1. By their partners 2. In schools 3. In other educational establishments 4. Car parks 5. Pubs or restaurants The thing you're worrying about doesn't even appear, even though the uk 2004 act has given them power to do so for nearly 20 years. Even given that you're correct and there is a significant risk, what is THE ADDITIONAL risk that the Scottish act does over the 2004 act.? Nope you only think that you are correct. Until the appropriate laws are passed and there is a critical mass of trans men allowed into women’s hitherto private spaces then will will not know . Your disingenuousness is noted. Hi Bentley I believe that term could be more appropriate to you as I clearly separate what I think from what I know in my posts. If you look back I have used the phrase "my instincts: to denote that. You, on the other hand have still not answered my specific question. What is the ADDITIONAL risk over the 2004 UK GRA? Trans men have had nearly 20 years to access women's private spaces, so there's been ample time for that critical mass to be reached. Anyway your argument would have stopped every piece of social justice legislation ever being passed as there is always risks that people will abuse the legislation. One of the things the media have not reported much on is the reaction of trans people in scotland to the UK intervention. Devastated is putting it mildly. Have they to be forever discriminated against because of unknown risks? I think the biggest issue is that some people just can't get it out of their head that trans people are perverts. I think the thing about predatory males abusing the legislation is a smokescreen, because many simply think trans people are freaks. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 19, 2023 18:42:24 GMT
Nope you only think that you are correct. Until the appropriate laws are passed and there is a critical mass of trans men allowed into women’s hitherto private spaces then will will not know . Your disingenuousness is noted. Hi Bentley I believe that term could be more appropriate to you as I clearly separate what I think from what I know in my posts. If you look back I have used the phrase "my instincts: to denote that. You, on the other hand have still not answered my specific question. What is the ADDITIONAL risk over the 2004 UK GRA? Trans men have had nearly 20 years to access women's private spaces, so there's been ample time for that critical mass to be reached. Anyway your argument would have stopped every piece of social justice legislation ever being passed as there is always risks that people will abuse the legislation. One of the things the media have not reported much on is the reaction of trans people in scotland to the UK intervention. Devastated is putting it mildly. Have they to be forever discriminated against because of unknown risks? I think the biggest issue is that some people just can't get it out of their head that trans people are perverts. I think the thing about predatory males abusing the legislation is a smokescreen, because many simply think trans people are freaks. Men haven’t been able to access women’s spaces legally. If it becomes legal then there must be an expectation that the number of men claiming that they are women and therefore entitled to use women’s spaces will significantly increase. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 19, 2023 18:43:27 GMT
Ask yourselves this: What is the value of Scotland’s devolved power if Westminster can summarily overturn a bill passed by a democratically elected legislature empowered by the Scotland Act, a bill that was six years in the making and which passed with a quite staggering two thirds cross-party majority? The word devolution means the transfer or surrender of power from one group to another. Was power ever really devolved to Scotland in the first place if Westminster reserved the right to trample on and overturn ScotGov’s decisions? If Westminster’s meddling in an area of devolved government is not improper, then their definition of devolution is askew. Power cannot be devolved if it still resides with Westminster. Yes - but only on devolved issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 19, 2023 18:43:42 GMT
Power is only truly devolved, ie transferred or surrendered, if there is no loophole through which it can also be retained.
Westminster is not saying that gender reform isn’t a devolved matter, and why wouldn’t it be? Scotland issues birth, marriage and death certificates, so why draw the line at gender reassignment certificates? In fact, Alister Jack is clearly avoiding that argument.
He says: “I’m sorry that it involves gender and the trans community and they’re not part of my thinking at all. This is entirely a legal opinion, the constitutional situation, and a piece of legislation that has adverse impacts on other legislation in the UK…
The legal advice I have says that citizens right across the United Kingdom including Scotland are impacted – there’s adverse effects – by this legislation so that is why I stopped it going to royal assent.”
How does Mr. Jack reconcile this with the fact that the UK government is about to introduce sweeping marriage reforms in England and Wales that will intentionally create the very same sort of legal status conflicts in different geographic areas as the bill he is now preventing from going to royal assent? Who will stop that piece of legislation from going to royal assent because of its adverse impacts?
That looks like a double standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 19, 2023 18:54:04 GMT
Power is only truly devolved, ie transferred or surrendered, if there is no loophole through which it can also be retained. Westminster is not saying that gender reform isn’t a devolved matter, and why wouldn’t it be? Scotland issues birth, marriage and death certificates, so why draw the line at gender reassignment certificates? In fact, Alister Jack is clearly avoiding that argument. He says: “I’m sorry that it involves gender and the trans community and they’re not part of my thinking at all. This is entirely a legal opinion, the constitutional situation, and a piece of legislation that has adverse impacts on other legislation in the UK… The legal advice I have says that citizens right across the United Kingdom including Scotland are impacted – there’s adverse effects – by this legislation so that is why I stopped it going to royal assent.” How does Mr. Jack reconcile this with the fact that the UK government is about to introduce sweeping marriage reforms in England and Wales that will intentionally create the very same sort of legal status conflicts in different geographic areas as the bill he is now preventing from going to royal assent? Who will stop that piece of legislation from going to royal assent because of its adverse impacts?
That looks like a double standard.How does changing the age of marriage in England impact Scotland? |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 19, 2023 19:02:29 GMT
Power is only truly devolved, ie transferred or surrendered, if there is no loophole through which it can also be retained. Westminster is not saying that gender reform isn’t a devolved matter, and why wouldn’t it be? Scotland issues birth, marriage and death certificates, so why draw the line at gender reassignment certificates? In fact, Alister Jack is clearly avoiding that argument. He says: “I’m sorry that it involves gender and the trans community and they’re not part of my thinking at all. This is entirely a legal opinion, the constitutional situation, and a piece of legislation that has adverse impacts on other legislation in the UK… The legal advice I have says that citizens right across the United Kingdom including Scotland are impacted – there’s adverse effects – by this legislation so that is why I stopped it going to royal assent.” How does Mr. Jack reconcile this with the fact that the UK government is about to introduce sweeping marriage reforms in England and Wales that will intentionally create the very same sort of legal status conflicts in different geographic areas as the bill he is now preventing from going to royal assent? Who will stop that piece of legislation from going to royal assent because of its adverse impacts?
That looks like a double standard.How does changing the age of marriage in England impact Scotland? Legal Scottish marriages of under 18s will not be recognized in England and Wales, and their legal children will be illegitimate in those places. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 19, 2023 19:59:54 GMT
Hi Bentley I believe that term could be more appropriate to you as I clearly separate what I think from what I know in my posts. If you look back I have used the phrase "my instincts: to denote that. You, on the other hand have still not answered my specific question. What is the ADDITIONAL risk over the 2004 UK GRA? Trans men have had nearly 20 years to access women's private spaces, so there's been ample time for that critical mass to be reached. Anyway your argument would have stopped every piece of social justice legislation ever being passed as there is always risks that people will abuse the legislation. One of the things the media have not reported much on is the reaction of trans people in scotland to the UK intervention. Devastated is putting it mildly. Have they to be forever discriminated against because of unknown risks? I think the biggest issue is that some people just can't get it out of their head that trans people are perverts. I think the thing about predatory males abusing the legislation is a smokescreen, because many simply think trans people are freaks. Men haven’t been able to access women’s spaces legally. If it becomes legal then there must be an expectation that the number of men claiming that they are women and therefore entitled to use women’s spaces will significantly increase. Hi Bentley No, you're factually wrong. People born men have been able to access female only areas in the UK since the 2004 act. All legally. I have a solution. (Now I am being disingenuous). On birth all females are given a lifetime "I'm female certificate" In future access to female only places will be by I'm female certificate or by GRC. Happy? |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 19, 2023 21:20:13 GMT
Out of interest, it appears the majority of Scots are disapproving of the First Dictators Pervert Bill,  |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 19, 2023 21:45:16 GMT
Out of interest, it appears the majority of Scots are disapproving of the First Dictators Pervert Bill, View Attachment Hi Om15 That would not surprise me. Change is hard for most people and I was certainly dubious about it. Until I looked into it properly. Why spoil a reasonable point with the dictator thing, however? Whatever faults nicola sturgeon has, she's a democrat. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 19, 2023 21:55:15 GMT
Out of interest, it appears the majority of Scots are disapproving of the First Dictators Pervert Bill, View Attachment Hi Om15 That would not surprise me. Change is hard for most people and I was certainly dubious about it. Until I looked into it properly. Why spoil a reasonable point with the dictator thing, however? Whatever faults nicola sturgeon has, she's a democrat. Don't you mean demoprat? |
|
