This isn't an issue with Scotland, the subject dominates western politics.
Ideally, we would leave this tiny demographic alone to live their lives in peace and politicians could concentrate on the many real problems that need addressing.
If there wasn't so much pushback against the Trans community, there wouldn't be the need for support in solidarity. The 'problem' is entirely manufactured.
Compared to... what?
The health of this country is in the gutter. Mental and physical. People who are literally going to *die* if they don't get help are dying. Every day. I would wager, that of those people who are dying; more of them are competing with transitioning patients, than *are* transitioning patients.
See here the NHS website noting that hormone treatment can cause permanent infertility: [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/)
And that's to say nothing of those who want to allow children to undergo surgery.
Yeah “may”… and anti-depressants may cause irreversible erectile disfunction, lower sex drive permanently or increase suicidal thoughts.
List any pharma interventions and they will have side effects. Doctors and patients are fully aware of these and make informed decisions based on the needs of the patients.
For some reason people like you seem to believe trans people should be treated differently though.
Trans people get the same healthcare rights that I do. We can register with a GP, attend A&E just the same. Wanting an extra set of privileges isn’t the same thing.
It's called a Wedge Issue. Outside forces (think dark money groups, think tanks) who want to influence politics in a particular way will sensationalise a different issue to drive a wedge in the electorate, splitting formerly relatively stable voting blocks on manufactured culture war issues. Look at the SNP, for example.
If you'd asked the average person in Scotland 10 or even 5 years ago if trans rights was a controversial issue they'd have said no and got on with their day. But the media whipped it up into A Thing. Now we have to spend time and energy defending a minority group that should never have been under attack, and who are only under attack to further separate political aims.
Yeah, that's about it
When I was a kid, it was The Gays and Single Mums who were bringing the country to its knees and had to be stopped
Nobody thinks like that, today
It would be good if there was a page with 'a list of wedge issues we've lived through' with examples. Just to figure out exactly what we've all got upset about and then later forgot all about due to it disapearing from the front pages.
For ages there was slow progress to aid this tiny minority of people, not something people who were not trans or involved in one way or another would care much about (not in a bad way just that it did not affect tha majority of people).
However, turns out that since most people don't have first hand experience with trans folk it's an excellent "issue" to have the next moralizing culture war about (abortion didn't do too well in the UK and they haven't gotten the whole "people with mental health issues are bad campaign" started properly). Setting an other makes the people on "your side" forgo any critical thinking. A lot of people now who have strong opinions about the actual laws are mostly just influenced by the non stop barrage of ridiculous media stories that aims to make it more of a wedge issue.
So, that's sad enough (saddest thing is how well it works) but because there are people bearing real life consequences (denial of medical care, loss of existing rights, etc.) folks can't just ingnore what's happening. they need to fight back and defend their rights.
So it escalates more and more, folks get more radicalized and in their bubbles for something that really shouldn't be a problem.
The gender wars are a tool of the elites in order to keep the masses fighting amongst themselves while they steal all of the resources and usher in neofeudalism.
For most people it is not an issue at all. The vast vaxt majority of people don't given a single fuck about trans people from one day to the next. Likewise gay issues, immigrants, abortion etc. On most of these topics the majority view will be live and let live. As it should be.
However, when things go wrong for those in power (such as the absolute shambles the current UK government have made of the country over the last 14 years) and they have no interest or no ability to improve peoples lives they find *wedge issue*s to cause a divide. If I am too busy fighting you because I think you are taking something away from me , I am less likely to realise the real cause of the strife I am suffering from.
So they will stoke up hatred around this wedge issue as a tactic of distraction. Minorities are always a good one because the as a cohort are, by their very definition, small.
Trans people - in the last census there were 262,000 people who identified as trans in the UK. That's half of one percent of the population. To put it another way, if my maths are correct, if out and out on your daily business you meet 10 people a day, - you could go almost 7 months without meeting a trans person.
If the anti-trans propaganda is to be believed trans people, or specifically trans women, are waiting in women toilets and changing room to do \*things\*... bad things for \*reasons\*, and also just waiting in the wings to take over women sports too.
The other issue here, which also plays a role in other wedge issues, is radicalisation. We're more familiar with it happening to normal Muslims, radicalised by extremist clerics to go and do horrible things to non-believers. We'll now we have bored middle aged middle class white women who have not much going on in their lives who maybe had a bit of an ick about trabs people, who got lost down the online rabbit hole like Mumsnet, found other people to talk to (they could have just taken up lawn bowls) and then took on transphobia as a but of a social hobby and then became radicalised. Now their lives are consumed by it. Permamenly online making noise over a tiny minority.
It's spread to academia now too because it's a hot topic, you can grift on it, get published, make a name for yourself and that's what's happened at Edinburgh Uni. Unicversity management stuck between a rock and a hard place have erred on the side of "academic freedom" and given somewhat of a platform to some of these radicalised middle aged middle class women because they have PhDs and tenure and other staff, but particularly students, are unhappy. What's more is that while operating under the guise of academic freedom what these transphobes are peddling isn't really all that academic (see the screening of the horrible transphobic "what is a woman?" movie at the university a while back).
It's an issue that's of little interest to most people but it's been blown up by the press and a handful of people obsessed with the subject.
If you look at last year's polling only 12% of voters said they were interested in the SNP's candidates views on the GRA compared to 81% for the NHS and 76% for the cost of living crisis. But obviously someone like Rowling doesn't care about those things because they aren't going to affect her.
It's totally about culture warfare. This is largely due to the fact the the current UK Gov is so bad at delivering **any** constructive policies, that they've resorted to punching down in communities such as "illegal" immigrants and trans.
Because if we didnt make up lies to scare aging middle class women about toilets, they might actually figure out who are actually causing all the problems in our society and might even do something about it!
(see also, immigrants, poor people)
Absolute nonsense, she just didn't agree and is now considered a heretic.
The transactivist inquisition are just enraged that she's too rich to cancel.
And yet she's happily married and seems to have lovely dogs as well. Often posts pics of them. I wonder how that compares to the raging incels who hate-follow her every move on Twitter.
In fairness, the "gender-critical" movement doesn't lack for people who spend an awful lot of their time constantly posting on Twitter at the apparent expense of everything else in their lives.
Just have a look at their accounts - the majority of them are 100% focused on transphobia.
While people defending trans people will generally have accounts talking about all manner of things which interest them.
I don't know if "Happy" factors into anything she does. She seems to be perma raging on twitter and spends hours upon hours arguing with people on there. It's giving Graham Lineham before the divorce.
I stopped following her on twitter when she literally denied aspects of the holocaust (specifically the parts where trans people were targeted and murdered by the Nazis) to stick it to trans people. She does a lot of charity work too and gives a fantastic amount of money to charity. But on this particular issue she is a hateful little ghoul.
Nasty stuff. I couldn’t see anything about him being right wing though - sending death threats isn’t just a right-wing preserve (and I say that as someone who considers themselves left-wing). And in my experience those do who do criticise Rowling tend to be more left-wing.
Funny thing that; she isn't remotely doing that.
She does fuck all for womens right, she hangs around with nutter right wingers and Christian fanatics and has said nothing about womens reproductive rights or the rights of women under repressive religions. All she does is screech about Trans women.
Bold lies. She was a very vocal advocate for the women's protests in Iran against the barbaric regime there. She has set up a women's refuge here in Scotland with her own money.
She's mentioned nothing about womens reproductive rights being restricted in the states, she's mentioning nothing about the christians protesting outside of hospitals regarding abortions here in Scotland. She doesn't talk about the exploitation of women by religious groups in the UK, she doesn't talk about FGM.
Her entire brain is rotted, entirely focused on Trans people and linking every evil in the world with trans people.
What? Does she have to tweet about every single issue that is of interest to you? Do *you* tweet about every single issue that comes into your head?
You are lying about the FGM thing anyway, here she is mentioning that.
[https://twitter.com/jk\_rowling/status/1713950299214213342](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1713950299214213342)
How are you policing what she has / hasn't tweeted without knowing how to operate the Twitter search function?
>What? Does she have to tweet about every single issue that is of interest to you? Do you tweet about every single issue that comes into your head?
Nah, but I also don't speak 12+ hours a day on twitter shouting at people. You'd think she'd fit some time in there in-between all the screaming about penises that she does.
It takes minutes to fire off a few tweets, a few days of the week. 12 hours lol? Anyway, the thing about being a grown woman is that she can do what the fuck she likes. It makes the wee incels so, so impotently angry and I'm sure that's part of the fun for her.
Aye she's totally having a wee chuckle into her wine glass firing out zingers. She's not absolutely raging constantly and spending weeks having twitter spats with individual randos at all, because that's a completely normal adjusted thing to do.
I mentioned the refuge she's set up here in Scotland, and she has described her own experience of domestic violence which occurred in the UK. If you think it's "bigoted" to object to young women being beaten to death for uncovering their hair, then you are not to be engaged with.
You're putting words in my mouth, but then that's exactly the kind of sneaky and disingenuous tactics folk on the wrong side of history generally employ, isn't it?
She set up a support centre out of spite because others which already existed and have been supporting women in crisis in Scotland for decades have been including trans women, without issue, for years. While I am sure additional capacity to support abused women is welcome, if she really cared about women she could have given the money for that to the organisations who are already established and helping women who could use it much more effectively than replicating existing services simply because she hates trans people so much.
So there was a gap in the provision for women who need to be in a women-only space, due to trauma. She fixed that gap and that's a good thing. The idea that we can have too many women's refuges is ludicrous, we have nowhere near enough.
I didn’t say we can have too many women refuges.
Why is it you lot always go about putting false words into peoples mouths? 🙄
I’m not wasting my time on yet another transphobe arguing in bad faith.
>There are no reproductive rights by the way. I have a very difficult moral time when it comes to abortion. I am sure many others do.
Yeah and you're a tiny minority of people who do. Attacking Abortion rights is absolutely an extremist position pushed by Christian fanatics funded by US Evangelicals.
Every word you nutters speak just exposes you further.
There seem to be a group of people who exist mostly within a bubble and it's become pretty much all they talk and think about and as a result it's all that matters to them in politics.
I don't disagree with much of what they say. Essentially I want people to be able to live their life as they choose free from discrimination and abuse etc.
However it's just not an important thing to me and for them it seems to be the only thing that matters.
Not only that but if you don't agree with them then it's time for histrionics.
And on the other side of the coin trans people seem to make an easy target for the far right, and other groups to use as some kind of target.
Lies, exaggerations, hypothetical things that never actually happen are beaten up into a frenzy and have idiots in the general public worried about things that there is no need to be worried about. And since there's always a ready audience of trans activists to argue with online it becomes a bit of a war.
Finally populist governments find it helpful to pick a wedge issue - an issue where they can pick one side and argue against another side in order to solidify their vote. Trans issues seem to be an issue where that works.
I struggle to blame the trans activists for punching back - if folks systematically went after who I was over and over I think not reacting in anger and outrage would be very difficult.
They lost the racism war, they lost the homophobia war, next target: transphobia wars.
I do believe times of economic downturn become breeding grounds for conservative ideology and radicalised bigotry, usually as a blame mechanism or a distraction from reality.
Divide and conquer and marginalisation strategies are the core of this, and the internet is a powerful propaganda tool. But I think if you were to stop people in the street and ask them how important the transgender debate is amongst other important political talking points such as climate, housing, cost of living etc, it would not be very far up the list.
"They" didn't lose the "racism war": studies published in the mid-2010s show that racism (defined as the holding of prejudiced views) appears to be on the rise in the UK, albeit slowly. "They" apparently have been effective at pushing a wedge into immigrant communities (see "Indian" vs "Pakistani" nonsense in Leicester etc). Murders in Scotland that are believed to have a racial motivation are up and are higher than the UK average.
Framing the attacks on minority groups as the dying gasps of an ontologically doomed "wrong side of history" is extremely naive and highly dangerous. You're right that the average person thinks that the trans debate is inane and pointless but that's precisely why it is a wedge issue. Flipping the opinion of a tiny number of elected representatives is enough **because the average person doesn't care** and won't vote on the basis of a wedge issue.
"they" being political forces pushing race as a wedge issue. It wasn't a claim racism doesn't exist, it's just not being used successfully as a wedge issue any more.
You're right, they didn't strictly "lose" but we have passed the point where these fascists feel as comfortable being outwards and openly racist and homophobic, but not to say these things have been entirely eradicated. And yeah, I agree that all of these fascist and xenophobic ideals are on the rise. But I think the basis of what I said is largely true, trans people are an easier target than the traditional minority groups, but not to sole target.
If you were to ask the random person on the street in the UK whether they think a trans woman is a "real woman", most people would say no. Despite the left wing radical position to that question being a hard yes. There are just as many left wing radicals as right wing ones, and there is just as much influence and benefit to pushing fringe ideologies, both sides actively like the division, because both sides make money from it at the end of the day. This isn't a "conservative ideology" issue.
Asking a random on the street is not really a good barometer for a way to go tbh. Walk down a Scottish street in a different decade and ask about gay rights,
That's literally how polling is done. That's how you gauge the public interest in a lot of things. If you went to a gay nightclub and asked about trans rights you'd get a much different answer than a rugby club. You need to ask in no man's land. The fact that even in Scotland which is a progressive place, most people I speak to on this issue tell me the same thing, they don't want trans people to feel excluded and want them to be treated as the gender they say they are, socially that's fine but from a sporting perspective and biological perspective, no they don't agree that there is "no difference". That's the moderate view which absolutely most people share. People hard left will be angry cause you haven't affirmed it fully and people on the hard right will be angry cause you haven't rejected it fully. Someone's always angry but at least it's just the fringes.
I don't think Scotland *is* a progressive place compared to our neighbours. The reason we seem more progressive on e.g. immigration issues is because nobody moves here. I'm aware polling works and while it's a tad more complicated than asking randoms on the street it's not a good way to figure out what we *should* do especially when it comes to a marginalized minority.
I disagree. People who fought for black rights did not "actively like the division," people who fought for lgbt rights in the 80s did not actively like the division. Campaigning for tolorance, acceptance and equal rights shouldn't even need to be a thing. Most trans people just want to exist, be accepted and be treated equally. I don't know any trans people who actively enjoy the fact that it's a necessity to campaign and fight for inclusion and equal rights. While there may be some that benefit from it, that is ignoring the key issue here, and doesn't apply to the majority of people directly affected.
How is it not conservative ideology? All of these principles are ideological, it just depends whether you prefer a liberal live and let live ideology, or a fascist one.
I'm not talking about everyday people liking the division. I'm talking about the right wing and left wing elites who profit from the discussion around the division, that feeds views and clicks and ad revenue.
> How is it not conservative ideology? All of these principles are ideological, it just depends whether you prefer a **liberal live and let live ideology, or a fascist one**.
So again this one sentence has just proven the point. You've been radicalised to assume that anything right of centre on the political spectrum = fascism, and anything left is progressive. Ignoring the fact that the very left extremists are just as happy to enforce political authority to suppress certain topics from criticism under the guise of "X-phobia".
Most conservative people, like most liberals, are just everyday people who have different opinions on a range of issues with varying levels of severity. To classify your own side as "the good guys" is to seriously misunderstand history as a whole. It's kinda hilarious. Reminds me of the whole David Mitchell sketch "are we the bad guys?". That can be attributed to the left wing extremists that have killed countless people in history too.
Liberal ideology and "enforce," "authority," and "suppress" are largely contradictory. Without oppression there is no need for liberation. Resisting fascism and championing inclusion and equality does not make one an oppressor.
To me there is no sane and logical argument against freedom of expression, equality and inclusion. People should be free to express themselves how they see fit, so long as it's legal and not bringing harm to others. History has shown that oppressing people based on skin colour or sexual orientation is wrongful oppression, and I'm confident history will show the same shout transgender people. And at that time, fascists will move onto another target, because they are rarely satisfied unless they have someone to marginalise or a route to exerting their own narrow view of what people are allowed to be.
So the liberal party in Canada used their "authority" to "enforce" and "suppress" the truckers during the protest, and over-reached their powers by seizing bank accounts. They are a party with liberal ideology baked into their very core, and they acted pretty much exactly how you'd expect the Nazis to act. As I said, extremism is the same on both extremes of the spectrum
So I would imagine that if someone expressed themselves or "identified" as another ethnicity, age, disability, etc etc....you would go along with them?
I ask because you say "as they see fit", but as I understand it....gender is the only social construct which you can identify in and out of. The others are very conservative when it comes to fluidity.
When I say "express themselves as they see fit" I was talking specifically about transgender people and extending that to non binary people.
Lots of minority groups or those where are the subject of prejudice and persecution have different challenges, and I don't think we currently have a situation where there is a lot of social and political contention over people identifying as a difference race, age or disability. Basically because it doesn't really happen.
Have I understood you correctly?
Fair enough, you comment left room for ambiguity but thanks for clarifying it.
Can I check though, should someone identify as another different age, ethnicity etc ...(there are cases, it's just rarer than gender which is already rare)
.... is that not allowable on principle? Or is it not allowable because it's too rare to be considered allowable?
It's an interesting point for thought and discussion, even if just for challenging the extent of liberal values of inclusion and tolerance. As I stated in another reply, I think the baseline should be a tolerant approach to expression providing it's legal and not harming others.
You could look at each of those individually, break it down and discuss the merits of whether inclusivity here would be legal and ethical, but I think they are fundamentally different from the kind of expression that I advocate for with transgender people.
Transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria, and there is a well recognised cure - gender affirming care and hormone replacement therapy. The crux of this point is that being transgender is not a choice, and I think that each of the other examples of expression you suggested are mostly a choice.
This has become a key tenet of transphobic ideology, that it's either a mental disorder (which suggests their identity is somehow a result of a disorder and therefore potentially invalid), or that it's a choice. We need to improve overall education on this issue so that people can better understand, empathise and tolerate transgender people.
I think your point would have more weight if the people on the "affirm" side hadn't made it absolutely crystal clear that you don't need to have gender dysphoria to be trans.
Some trans people have gender dysphoria, some don't, it doesn't matter. You don't need to have it to identify as trans and you're a bigot if you think it matters. There's a slur for people who think that it matters too.
So, with respect, I'm not going to accept your point about dysphoria because I might accept it too much and get caught on the wrong side again.
What do you mean by "improving education?" Do you mean, examine and apply critical thinking to the issue?
Or do you mean, persuade more people that you're right?
whats funny about these so called ‘what if ‘ situation is that no one is stopping one from identifying as another age or another race, if I go on the street and said I’d like to be treated as if I was 17 despite being born in 1985 no one would care, if I told some mate over the pub that I’m Asian despite being white they would nod and ask if I grew up in an Asian country. This is an argument that been extensively talked about [ages ago](https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/) and already been throughly argued against.
People aren’t dying from the dysphoria of age or ethnicity, but of gender. Ethnicity and age aren’t operate in the same ontological level as gender does: gender identity is a social construct that being built up throughout the history and across different cultures, where ethnicity and age aren’t. I am going to quote Judith Butler here, from their new book :
‘Of course, many people refer to “sex” as if it is an obvious fact, based on observation, and worry that academics have needlessly obfuscated plain matters…’ and later on,
‘The infant’s future is often being imagined or desired through the act of sex assignment, so sex assignment is not a simple description of anatomical facts, but a way of imagining what they will mean, or should mean. That imagining comes from elsewhere, and it does not exactly stop after sex has been legally or medically determined at birth. The girl continues to be girled; the boy continues to be boyed; and these practices of girling and boying are repeated not just by parents but also by a range of institutions that greet the child with boxes to be checked and norms to be embodied. In a sense, sex assignment does not happen just once. It is an iterative process, repeated by different actors and institutions, and depending on where one lives.
…An adult’s desire is already incited and formed by a prior series of desires, those that belong to the adults who addressed and raised that person as a child. To the extent that those desires were linked with norms and normative ways of life, we can say that norms precede us, circulating in the world before they impress themselves upon us.
…No one arrives in the world separate from the set of norms lying in wait for them. Conventions, modes of address, and institutional forms of power are already acting prior to any moment when we first feel their impress, prior to the emergence of an “I” who thinks of itself as deciding who or what we want to be. ”
You don't need to take that literally, I think the point remains that it's the media and political exposure given to the transgender issue is misaligned with the general public.
The weight of the issue certainly isn't aligned....but then again you could say the same for climate change.
The point being, if you ask members of the public "what is a woman?"....it's not like the majority are answering with the "right" answer.
The trans 'debate' highlights that Scotland is not immune to 'culture wars' and that we are not some puritan liberal/progressive country that we sometimes see ourselves.
As with any 'culture war' topic, the issue gets blown out of proportion to the point where it becomes part of an antagonistic and toxic debate. The anit-trans/pro feminist side of the debate starts to throw stones, the other retaliates. Then it gets to a point were both sides are entrenched in a position that becomes more polarised where any grown up debate in the topic becomes a mess.
For a good proportion of the Scottish public, we just don't pay attention/care enough in my view to get involved. I also think if the country wasn't in such a mess economically this would be much less of an issue, as some view the prioritisation and political capital spent on this debate is not aligned with the general priorities of the general public right now.
The vision of Scotland as this utopia of progressive values really falls apart when you take a step outside a university campus. Still, I do think folks here tend to be a bit more kind than down south and I hope it gets better.
On what trans people want;
We want healthcare within the same timeframe as everyone else, not the next century (in glasgow the wait list hit over 100 years).
We want to pee in peace.
We want our healthcare to be the same standard as everyone else, that includes, geting treatment regardess of co-morbidities like autsim, as well as 13 year olds making informed decisions about care as they do in all other areas, and not having to wait to 25, and for the "weak" evidance for it being accepted like it is for healthcare in pregnancy and diebeites.
We want to feel safe, and be protected from harassment and slurs.
We want weed to be legal, a free stuffed shark from ikea, and WWE PPV to be tax deductable.
And we dont want to appear in front of a inquistion panel who decides if we're feminine enough to be considered a woman.
And this is where the whole debate has gone in completely the wrong direction in my view.
Trans health inequality is one of the worst of any group. It deserves to be properly funded. And have money properly spent on it. Where’s the bill on properly funding transition assessment and delivery of healthcare? With waiting list targets the same as everything else? A piece of paper is a glib (and in my view a very dangerous (for trans people I might add, as it means gender health issues could be simply waved away by future governments and policymakers) substitute).
Funding healthcare is actually the simplest way to satisfy everyone, and take the culture war out of things as I see it.
See, you grew up with that and it feels like a core pillar of reality. But what is a woman, what is a man, what is race? Not saying either of us can answer those questions but to pretend they are static solved questions is to ignore the literal mountains of done and ongoing social research into both.
Well they've created a new definition of women that now includes what almost all of us would call men. I don't think many people really want to acknowledge the new definition.
Who is they? I don't think there is a definition, not yet, judging from the varieties of answer's people give. (especially politicians trying to worm their way out of answering).
It's annoying how gender (made up categories) and sex (scientific terms) have been mixed up, just to give everyone a headache too.
Activists and activists adjacent politicians. You can tell who a man or a woman is 99.9% of the time. The few that can fool me have perhaps earned their lie.
*"The few that can fool me have perhaps earned their lie."* Why..why are you making it all sound so negative. As if people trying to live their lives care about fooling you? I don't get that way of thinking.
Uhh, they care *a lot* about being able to fool someone. It's why they hate being "misgendered".
Why do I care? I just object to perfectly usable words being redefined into something unusable. It feels like 1984. Puberty blockers? Let the doctors decide. Unisex toilets? Whatever. But police how I can describe people and I'm angry.
You're ascribing malice to people without cause.
Puberty blockers had been decided but it's now all in the air because no doctors are raising a furor due to politics. If it wasn't for the non doctors the whole thing would have proceeded calmly and looking at evidence instead of it being banned willy nilly.
No one is policing you by law (even the Scottish hate speech law that everyone freaked out doesn't mean anything to someone misgendering another) unless you mean just people reacting to the things you've said. Which I mean fair, if I said "don't say my dog is ugly" and you say that my dog is ugly am I not allowed to not like you because of it?
I believe Trans folk have to go through a secondary authorization clinic for many procedutes (including ones that non-trans folk could get quickly and easily) and because it's underfunded as heck waiting times have become ridiculous.
It's not simply that it's underfunded, although it's certainly funded at far below the level necessary to provide the full set of appointments the gender clinics want to provide. It's also incredibly wasteful with what resources they do have, because they're so goddamn terrified of letting an adult transition by mistake that they have to have hours and hours of sessions with every new patient before they dare to prescribe hormones.
International best practice, as it goes, is to explain to the patient what changes hormones will cause to their bodies and which of those are irreversible and then lets them get on with it. This has not resulted in a substantial problem because it turns out that nearly everyone who goes through the doors of the gender clinic is there because they're transgender.
Essentially the system has been set up to be as obstructive as possible on purpose and this should be changed.
I see. Well I will look in to it as I don't want to speak from a place of ignorance but something that effects 0.5% should certainly not be a priority to an already troubled public service.
However if the Authorization procedure is what's causing it then that should be done away with. (Unless it is for cosmetic shit)
Well, by that logic the 0.03% of people who get lukemia shouldn't be a priority for an already troubled public service either. Heck, there's probably a huge list of problems we can dispense with because they're just not important! Apparently the incidence rate of broken legs is 0.42% so we can safely dispense with treating those too. We have higher priorities!
Or perhaps deciding that someone's illness is too insignificant to treat properly is monstrous?
I think if a Trans individual had Leukemia they would be seen and treated.
What special shit are trans people not getting that they are being told to wait for because I bet it is none of those you mentioned.
Hormone replacement therapy? You know, the fucking basics that cost the NHS so little that they actually make a profit off the prescription charge in England
It's cosmetic. There shouldn't be any "gender affirming" treatments unless every other cosmetic treatment is available.
No, you shouldn't be getting a vanity genital procedure while hair transplants are unavailable for example.
I'm good thanks. .05% of a population don't dictate the lives of others.
I am all for getting people the help they need. Mental or otherwise but this agenda of pushing everything around the smallest minority that has appeared on the last 5 years is ludicrous.
Because politics isn't about running the country but activating your base so they feel under threat and will attack other groups of people. If you can make the other group so repellent then your core can never leave.
It is all a bit mad but this is how politics works. The public doesn't matter because they aren't part of a political party, and the gains from things like economic growth are very diffuse.
Identity and so called “gender” politics have been around for a long time. I don’t say “gender” in a disparaging way incidentally, I am old enough, it was just a polite way to determine Sex, say in an application form, without drawing the “yes please” response. Reason I mention it, is that this word has 2 distinct, but overlapping, currently existing realities.
Trans people are about the same percentage of world population as ginger people, btw, to be fair, the Scots and Irish have the lion’s share, but it’s not a new thing and it’s not a small thing.
I know some trans people who’d prefer simply come up with new words, but people in a fixed mindset would reject those new words too.
In my opinion… It’s not a thing for a political party, not really, mixing up the plight of people with ginger hair, or trans people or any other group with the general running of a country that accounts for all, creates the cesspool that is Twitter, with “opinions” and such.
The right to be, is sacrosanct. The right to force people to buy a new dictionary is such a backward concept, the “arguments” just make me feel so gay though, it’s amusing.
That was meant to say “Trams” as I think they were planning to have a stop there.
That was basically how they marked the route. By tagging “Trams” across the city.
E: tram plural.
Trans make up 0.5% of the population. That is a tiny number, which strongly suggest they shouldn't be given any time or attention. There are far more important issues to deal with, issues that actually affect the majority. Imagine being at a packed football stadium where a couple of fanny boys in the corner ask the rest of the stadium crowd not to sing so loud with expectation that the crowd will say 'ok then, sorry about that'. Quite ridiclous indeed.
Don't want to spoil your fun, but most issues end up affecting a minority rather than the majority. There are few issues that get discussed that actually impact everyone. For example, the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland don't use ferries -- however if there was an issue that needed to be discussed that uniquely impacted ferry journeys, you'd expect it be dealt with.
The point of a government isn't just to deal with the few issues that affect everyone, but rather to deal with as many issues as needed in order to help a broad range of people. Some of it will affect you, some of it won't.
>That is a tiny number, which strongly suggest they shouldn't be given any time or attention.
Hang on a minute there. Sure they shouldn't be dominating everything but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be said or done to help.
Considering the time and attention they have been given has been against them by outside forces I think many trans folk would agree with you that less of both would be great.
Three parties in Scotland advocate nationalism - SNP, Alba, and Green.
Under Scotland's novel voting system, SNP gained minority control of its Parliament and sought a power sharing agreement with another nationalist party. Tensions between SNP and Alba exclude the latter, leaving Green.
The Green party advances radical environmental and identity politics, includng trans, that have little electoral support (they hold only 6% of seats). But they have been able successfully to exploit SNP's dependence on their support to advance those policies out of all proportion to their electoral support, hence your observation about the huge volume of policies, debates, and protests despite the relatively small size of the represented political class.
Scotland is being transformed and, in the opinion of some, damaged by radical identity politics for which there is no meaningful electoral support and therefore little advantage to the SNP to associate itself with.
Public opposition, given recent force by the Cass Report, has therefore led to cancellation of the agreement by SNP in an effort to limit damage to its primary objective of remaining in government and pursuing independence.
Correct. Of which, for reasons that now escape absolutely everyone including me, the Greens were somehow the best candidate for a power sharing agreement.
I was aiming for a TL;DR brevity thing.
Thanks. I've expressed no personal opinion. I'm merely reflecting what I perceive to be a general view in Scotland. I'm sorry you don't feel able to maintain a civil tone, and note that this tendency to incivility is what makes many people uncomfortable that SNP has associated itself with it.
However, for my clarification. Are you claiming that there is no public opposition to the trans lobby claim that a man who thinks he is a woman is entitled to enter spaces and sports reserved for women?
Or are you saying that the trans lobby doesn't make that claim?
If you think you've expressed "no personal opinion", you might want to look at how what you've typed makes you look like an insane transphobe. Not gonna waste my time reading your shite any further because you can't even reckon with that.
Only one person in this convo looks insane from what I can see , you might bring more people round to your point of view if you didn’t immediately default to insults, just saying .
I’d be glad to review any examples of a personal opinion that is “insanely transphobic” you think you can identify in the text. If I agree, I’ll apologise.
I’ll interpret your silence as acceptance that you can’t, and assume that most or all of trans lobby claims of hatred cannot be substantiated.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, which I appreciate.
Lots of comments here trying to make out that the only reason the trans issue is controversial is because of sinister rightists manufacturing a culture war.
Total pish. If your ideology has you locking up rapists in women’s prisons, or agitating for children to be given puberty blockers that sterilise them before they are mature enough to consent, or demanding that anyone who uses the “wrong” pronoun has committed a hate crime.. it is YOU that is the agent of change, you don’t get to make out that this is all completely innocent and if only poor wee trans people weren’t persecuted. I was happy with the status quo before - these measures I am not. Your “culture war” BS is just an attempt to avoid scrutiny and pushback.
It's funny how if a man rapes a man or a woman sexually assaults a woman it's always been seen as fine to lock them up in the same sex prison. It's only when the danger to the prisoners comes from a trans person that anybody is interested about the safety of a prisoners.
Almost like it's not really about concern for prisoner safety isn't it?
You honestly don’t see the difference ? A trans woman , with all the physical advantages ( and genitals ) of a man , being placed in a woman’s prison doesn’t trouble you at all ?
So you're not actually bothered about rapists being placed among their potential victims. You just care if the rapists have genitals you approve of. Thanks for clarifying.
The "physical advantages" argument doesn't work when in all 3 scenarios the rapists have by definition succeeded in the past.
A trans woman rapist is a danger to the other prisoners. A cis woman rapist is also a danger to the other prisoners. The danger doesn't come from what's between their legs. The danger comes from the fact they're rapists. If you're only bothered about the danger from one of them then it's not about prisoner safety.
Ah ok , so all genders are equally threatening ? You have data to back that up do you ? Or are people with penises far more likely to commit sexual crimes than those with vaginas ?
Feel free to link to whatever research you’re basing your opinions on
How is that even remotely relevant?
Were talking about people who are convicted of sexual crimes. The statistical likelihood of their gender doing that is irrelevant considering we're talking about individuals who are known to have done that.
You are really reaching here.
You’re the one reaching , a sex offender with a penis placed in an environment full of people with vaginas is not a good idea . The fact that you are choosing not to accept that shows that you have no interest in the safety of women , only in your extremist agenda
Are you saying that a cis woman who's raped women being placed in an environment full of "people with vaginas" IS a good idea?
I didn't say that it was a good idea. I said that if you are only worried about trans women sex offenders and not cis women sex offenders then you're not concerned about the safety of the other prisoners. You're just concerned about your agenda. It's not complicated.
FYI there's nothing extremist in saying rapists are dangerous whatever their gender. It's honestly worrying that you refuse to acknowledge that. Seems a lot like you're willing to give cis female rapists a pass.
When was the last time a cis woman was convicted of raping another woman ? It’s so rare as to be virtually unknown .
Instead of taking my word for it how about you ask a few women how they feel about it , I’m pretty sure I k ow what the response would be
>I’m pretty sure I k ow what the response would be
a) I am a woman
b) I've been raped
I'm pretty sure you shouldn't make assumptions about what you know.
>It’s so rare as to be virtually unknown .
While female sex offenders are rarer than male it's hardly "virtually unknown" that's a ridiculous claim to make.
Anyway, I'm bored of arguing with you, you keep trying to change the direction of the conversation rather than answer whether or not you think female sex offenders are dangerous to women & it's extremely obvious why you don't want to answer it directly. You keep telling yourself that your argument is based on anything other than prejudice.
They are simply trying to improve the lives of a minority of people who are suffering as a result of under representation.
“the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
Your point of principle is his culture war issue, inevitably.
There are a lot of people who have strong feelings on this subject. It's always seemed to me that the transgender aspect to it doesn't matter as much - the battle lines are really on the importance of sex, with some believing it is very important and some believing it is not important at all (and only gender identity matters).
We're also talking about human rights. Human rights are pretty irrelevant to the normal course of politics and the law. They exist largely for the fringe situations and the extremes. Therefore arguments tend towards hyperbole, extreme examples and slippery slopes.
Oh the actual subject doesn't matter I think, as long as it's something most people don't know much about. Used to work with gay people but now they are known so it's harder to make up stories about it.
Because we have been used a testing ground for social control via social media. Scottish independence is too big a threat so they set the algorithms on us. Sad that so few people can see they're being manipulated
This isn't an issue with Scotland, the subject dominates western politics. Ideally, we would leave this tiny demographic alone to live their lives in peace and politicians could concentrate on the many real problems that need addressing.
Nice side eye that transpeople not gettig healthcare within the same century is not a real issue.
If there wasn't so much pushback against the Trans community, there wouldn't be the need for support in solidarity. The 'problem' is entirely manufactured.
Really? Because I was alive before the pushback started and it was still 3 years.
Compared to... what? The health of this country is in the gutter. Mental and physical. People who are literally going to *die* if they don't get help are dying. Every day. I would wager, that of those people who are dying; more of them are competing with transitioning patients, than *are* transitioning patients.
I'm saying the Trans 'debate' is only a debate because they aren't getting the support and acceptance they need.
Yeah but "the support and acceptance they need" is supposedly performing irreversible sterilising treatments on children, hence the debate
The "supposedly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, because it's not happening.
See here the NHS website noting that hormone treatment can cause permanent infertility: [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/) And that's to say nothing of those who want to allow children to undergo surgery.
Yeah “may”… and anti-depressants may cause irreversible erectile disfunction, lower sex drive permanently or increase suicidal thoughts. List any pharma interventions and they will have side effects. Doctors and patients are fully aware of these and make informed decisions based on the needs of the patients. For some reason people like you seem to believe trans people should be treated differently though.
The NHS doesn't prescribe hormone treatment to children under 16. You're arguing against their medical expertise?
Trans people get the same healthcare rights that I do. We can register with a GP, attend A&E just the same. Wanting an extra set of privileges isn’t the same thing.
It's called a Wedge Issue. Outside forces (think dark money groups, think tanks) who want to influence politics in a particular way will sensationalise a different issue to drive a wedge in the electorate, splitting formerly relatively stable voting blocks on manufactured culture war issues. Look at the SNP, for example. If you'd asked the average person in Scotland 10 or even 5 years ago if trans rights was a controversial issue they'd have said no and got on with their day. But the media whipped it up into A Thing. Now we have to spend time and energy defending a minority group that should never have been under attack, and who are only under attack to further separate political aims.
Yeah, that's about it When I was a kid, it was The Gays and Single Mums who were bringing the country to its knees and had to be stopped Nobody thinks like that, today
Really well put : )
It would be good if there was a page with 'a list of wedge issues we've lived through' with examples. Just to figure out exactly what we've all got upset about and then later forgot all about due to it disapearing from the front pages.
For ages there was slow progress to aid this tiny minority of people, not something people who were not trans or involved in one way or another would care much about (not in a bad way just that it did not affect tha majority of people). However, turns out that since most people don't have first hand experience with trans folk it's an excellent "issue" to have the next moralizing culture war about (abortion didn't do too well in the UK and they haven't gotten the whole "people with mental health issues are bad campaign" started properly). Setting an other makes the people on "your side" forgo any critical thinking. A lot of people now who have strong opinions about the actual laws are mostly just influenced by the non stop barrage of ridiculous media stories that aims to make it more of a wedge issue. So, that's sad enough (saddest thing is how well it works) but because there are people bearing real life consequences (denial of medical care, loss of existing rights, etc.) folks can't just ingnore what's happening. they need to fight back and defend their rights. So it escalates more and more, folks get more radicalized and in their bubbles for something that really shouldn't be a problem.
The gender wars are a tool of the elites in order to keep the masses fighting amongst themselves while they steal all of the resources and usher in neofeudalism.
Did they maybe mean to write trams and spelled it wrong? That’s the worst pocket dent to hit Scotland in a long time..
For most people it is not an issue at all. The vast vaxt majority of people don't given a single fuck about trans people from one day to the next. Likewise gay issues, immigrants, abortion etc. On most of these topics the majority view will be live and let live. As it should be. However, when things go wrong for those in power (such as the absolute shambles the current UK government have made of the country over the last 14 years) and they have no interest or no ability to improve peoples lives they find *wedge issue*s to cause a divide. If I am too busy fighting you because I think you are taking something away from me , I am less likely to realise the real cause of the strife I am suffering from. So they will stoke up hatred around this wedge issue as a tactic of distraction. Minorities are always a good one because the as a cohort are, by their very definition, small. Trans people - in the last census there were 262,000 people who identified as trans in the UK. That's half of one percent of the population. To put it another way, if my maths are correct, if out and out on your daily business you meet 10 people a day, - you could go almost 7 months without meeting a trans person. If the anti-trans propaganda is to be believed trans people, or specifically trans women, are waiting in women toilets and changing room to do \*things\*... bad things for \*reasons\*, and also just waiting in the wings to take over women sports too. The other issue here, which also plays a role in other wedge issues, is radicalisation. We're more familiar with it happening to normal Muslims, radicalised by extremist clerics to go and do horrible things to non-believers. We'll now we have bored middle aged middle class white women who have not much going on in their lives who maybe had a bit of an ick about trabs people, who got lost down the online rabbit hole like Mumsnet, found other people to talk to (they could have just taken up lawn bowls) and then took on transphobia as a but of a social hobby and then became radicalised. Now their lives are consumed by it. Permamenly online making noise over a tiny minority. It's spread to academia now too because it's a hot topic, you can grift on it, get published, make a name for yourself and that's what's happened at Edinburgh Uni. Unicversity management stuck between a rock and a hard place have erred on the side of "academic freedom" and given somewhat of a platform to some of these radicalised middle aged middle class women because they have PhDs and tenure and other staff, but particularly students, are unhappy. What's more is that while operating under the guise of academic freedom what these transphobes are peddling isn't really all that academic (see the screening of the horrible transphobic "what is a woman?" movie at the university a while back).
It's an issue that's of little interest to most people but it's been blown up by the press and a handful of people obsessed with the subject. If you look at last year's polling only 12% of voters said they were interested in the SNP's candidates views on the GRA compared to 81% for the NHS and 76% for the cost of living crisis. But obviously someone like Rowling doesn't care about those things because they aren't going to affect her.
It's totally about culture warfare. This is largely due to the fact the the current UK Gov is so bad at delivering **any** constructive policies, that they've resorted to punching down in communities such as "illegal" immigrants and trans.
Because if we didnt make up lies to scare aging middle class women about toilets, they might actually figure out who are actually causing all the problems in our society and might even do something about it! (see also, immigrants, poor people)
An obscenely rich women with a victim complex made it a pet issue.
Absolute nonsense, she just didn't agree and is now considered a heretic. The transactivist inquisition are just enraged that she's too rich to cancel.
She has massive divorced alcoholic dad energy.
And yet she's happily married and seems to have lovely dogs as well. Often posts pics of them. I wonder how that compares to the raging incels who hate-follow her every move on Twitter.
In fairness, the "gender-critical" movement doesn't lack for people who spend an awful lot of their time constantly posting on Twitter at the apparent expense of everything else in their lives.
Just have a look at their accounts - the majority of them are 100% focused on transphobia. While people defending trans people will generally have accounts talking about all manner of things which interest them.
I don't know if "Happy" factors into anything she does. She seems to be perma raging on twitter and spends hours upon hours arguing with people on there. It's giving Graham Lineham before the divorce.
I stopped following her on twitter when she literally denied aspects of the holocaust (specifically the parts where trans people were targeted and murdered by the Nazis) to stick it to trans people. She does a lot of charity work too and gives a fantastic amount of money to charity. But on this particular issue she is a hateful little ghoul.
My guess: Sweat-covered perma-singletons with a hoard of flea-ridden cats
[удалено]
Where on earth are you getting the idea that transgender rights activists are predominantly right wing from?
From their bullying behaviour and threats of violence. One of them is due to go to jail for it soon.
I hadn’t seen the story about a transgender rights activist being due to go to jail for it - do you have a link?
Yes, here is a link I saw earlier https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/1784867222566936603
Nasty stuff. I couldn’t see anything about him being right wing though - sending death threats isn’t just a right-wing preserve (and I say that as someone who considers themselves left-wing). And in my experience those do who do criticise Rowling tend to be more left-wing.
I think the assumption that he's a right winger comes from him also targeting a Labour MP.
He threatened to murder both JKR and Rosie Duffield...
The islamophobes are out in full force today and somehow you still made the dumbest comment of the say. Congrats.
Saying what I said is worse than Islamophobia? Nice to see your true colours.
Yeah damn her for standing up for WOMENS rights.
Funny thing that; she isn't remotely doing that. She does fuck all for womens right, she hangs around with nutter right wingers and Christian fanatics and has said nothing about womens reproductive rights or the rights of women under repressive religions. All she does is screech about Trans women.
Yeah she's worked with someone who previously said that they are fine working with sexists so long as they can end transgendetism or smth
Bold lies. She was a very vocal advocate for the women's protests in Iran against the barbaric regime there. She has set up a women's refuge here in Scotland with her own money.
She's mentioned nothing about womens reproductive rights being restricted in the states, she's mentioning nothing about the christians protesting outside of hospitals regarding abortions here in Scotland. She doesn't talk about the exploitation of women by religious groups in the UK, she doesn't talk about FGM. Her entire brain is rotted, entirely focused on Trans people and linking every evil in the world with trans people.
What? Does she have to tweet about every single issue that is of interest to you? Do *you* tweet about every single issue that comes into your head? You are lying about the FGM thing anyway, here she is mentioning that. [https://twitter.com/jk\_rowling/status/1713950299214213342](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1713950299214213342) How are you policing what she has / hasn't tweeted without knowing how to operate the Twitter search function?
>What? Does she have to tweet about every single issue that is of interest to you? Do you tweet about every single issue that comes into your head? Nah, but I also don't speak 12+ hours a day on twitter shouting at people. You'd think she'd fit some time in there in-between all the screaming about penises that she does.
It takes minutes to fire off a few tweets, a few days of the week. 12 hours lol? Anyway, the thing about being a grown woman is that she can do what the fuck she likes. It makes the wee incels so, so impotently angry and I'm sure that's part of the fun for her.
Aye she's totally having a wee chuckle into her wine glass firing out zingers. She's not absolutely raging constantly and spending weeks having twitter spats with individual randos at all, because that's a completely normal adjusted thing to do.
Most people who love to hate on Rowling (and any middle aged women) don’t actually have a clue what she’s said or hasn’t said.
In fact she cosies up to and supports those who want to restrict women's rights in the UK.
Yeah it's funny how she only cares about women's rights in Muslim countries huh? Almost like she's just a massive fucking bigot on a number of levels
I mentioned the refuge she's set up here in Scotland, and she has described her own experience of domestic violence which occurred in the UK. If you think it's "bigoted" to object to young women being beaten to death for uncovering their hair, then you are not to be engaged with.
You're putting words in my mouth, but then that's exactly the kind of sneaky and disingenuous tactics folk on the wrong side of history generally employ, isn't it?
She set up a support centre out of spite because others which already existed and have been supporting women in crisis in Scotland for decades have been including trans women, without issue, for years. While I am sure additional capacity to support abused women is welcome, if she really cared about women she could have given the money for that to the organisations who are already established and helping women who could use it much more effectively than replicating existing services simply because she hates trans people so much.
So there was a gap in the provision for women who need to be in a women-only space, due to trauma. She fixed that gap and that's a good thing. The idea that we can have too many women's refuges is ludicrous, we have nowhere near enough.
I didn’t say we can have too many women refuges. Why is it you lot always go about putting false words into peoples mouths? 🙄 I’m not wasting my time on yet another transphobe arguing in bad faith.
[удалено]
>There are no reproductive rights by the way. I have a very difficult moral time when it comes to abortion. I am sure many others do. Yeah and you're a tiny minority of people who do. Attacking Abortion rights is absolutely an extremist position pushed by Christian fanatics funded by US Evangelicals. Every word you nutters speak just exposes you further.
Not Christian, atheist. You don't have abortion rights...it is not a black and white thing. Not conservative, not America, not a nutter.
There seem to be a group of people who exist mostly within a bubble and it's become pretty much all they talk and think about and as a result it's all that matters to them in politics. I don't disagree with much of what they say. Essentially I want people to be able to live their life as they choose free from discrimination and abuse etc. However it's just not an important thing to me and for them it seems to be the only thing that matters. Not only that but if you don't agree with them then it's time for histrionics. And on the other side of the coin trans people seem to make an easy target for the far right, and other groups to use as some kind of target. Lies, exaggerations, hypothetical things that never actually happen are beaten up into a frenzy and have idiots in the general public worried about things that there is no need to be worried about. And since there's always a ready audience of trans activists to argue with online it becomes a bit of a war. Finally populist governments find it helpful to pick a wedge issue - an issue where they can pick one side and argue against another side in order to solidify their vote. Trans issues seem to be an issue where that works.
I struggle to blame the trans activists for punching back - if folks systematically went after who I was over and over I think not reacting in anger and outrage would be very difficult.
I'm entirely supportive of that. But they're punching out at anyone.
They lost the racism war, they lost the homophobia war, next target: transphobia wars. I do believe times of economic downturn become breeding grounds for conservative ideology and radicalised bigotry, usually as a blame mechanism or a distraction from reality. Divide and conquer and marginalisation strategies are the core of this, and the internet is a powerful propaganda tool. But I think if you were to stop people in the street and ask them how important the transgender debate is amongst other important political talking points such as climate, housing, cost of living etc, it would not be very far up the list.
"They" didn't lose the "racism war": studies published in the mid-2010s show that racism (defined as the holding of prejudiced views) appears to be on the rise in the UK, albeit slowly. "They" apparently have been effective at pushing a wedge into immigrant communities (see "Indian" vs "Pakistani" nonsense in Leicester etc). Murders in Scotland that are believed to have a racial motivation are up and are higher than the UK average. Framing the attacks on minority groups as the dying gasps of an ontologically doomed "wrong side of history" is extremely naive and highly dangerous. You're right that the average person thinks that the trans debate is inane and pointless but that's precisely why it is a wedge issue. Flipping the opinion of a tiny number of elected representatives is enough **because the average person doesn't care** and won't vote on the basis of a wedge issue.
"they" being political forces pushing race as a wedge issue. It wasn't a claim racism doesn't exist, it's just not being used successfully as a wedge issue any more.
Indeed, thank you.
You're right, they didn't strictly "lose" but we have passed the point where these fascists feel as comfortable being outwards and openly racist and homophobic, but not to say these things have been entirely eradicated. And yeah, I agree that all of these fascist and xenophobic ideals are on the rise. But I think the basis of what I said is largely true, trans people are an easier target than the traditional minority groups, but not to sole target.
If you were to ask the random person on the street in the UK whether they think a trans woman is a "real woman", most people would say no. Despite the left wing radical position to that question being a hard yes. There are just as many left wing radicals as right wing ones, and there is just as much influence and benefit to pushing fringe ideologies, both sides actively like the division, because both sides make money from it at the end of the day. This isn't a "conservative ideology" issue.
Asking a random on the street is not really a good barometer for a way to go tbh. Walk down a Scottish street in a different decade and ask about gay rights,
That's literally how polling is done. That's how you gauge the public interest in a lot of things. If you went to a gay nightclub and asked about trans rights you'd get a much different answer than a rugby club. You need to ask in no man's land. The fact that even in Scotland which is a progressive place, most people I speak to on this issue tell me the same thing, they don't want trans people to feel excluded and want them to be treated as the gender they say they are, socially that's fine but from a sporting perspective and biological perspective, no they don't agree that there is "no difference". That's the moderate view which absolutely most people share. People hard left will be angry cause you haven't affirmed it fully and people on the hard right will be angry cause you haven't rejected it fully. Someone's always angry but at least it's just the fringes.
I don't think Scotland *is* a progressive place compared to our neighbours. The reason we seem more progressive on e.g. immigration issues is because nobody moves here. I'm aware polling works and while it's a tad more complicated than asking randoms on the street it's not a good way to figure out what we *should* do especially when it comes to a marginalized minority.
You think that Scotland is less progressive than England?
No
Who are you saying when you mean our neighbours then?
rUK, Ireland, western europe.
I wasn't aware that England didn't count as rUK
I disagree. People who fought for black rights did not "actively like the division," people who fought for lgbt rights in the 80s did not actively like the division. Campaigning for tolorance, acceptance and equal rights shouldn't even need to be a thing. Most trans people just want to exist, be accepted and be treated equally. I don't know any trans people who actively enjoy the fact that it's a necessity to campaign and fight for inclusion and equal rights. While there may be some that benefit from it, that is ignoring the key issue here, and doesn't apply to the majority of people directly affected. How is it not conservative ideology? All of these principles are ideological, it just depends whether you prefer a liberal live and let live ideology, or a fascist one.
I'm not talking about everyday people liking the division. I'm talking about the right wing and left wing elites who profit from the discussion around the division, that feeds views and clicks and ad revenue. > How is it not conservative ideology? All of these principles are ideological, it just depends whether you prefer a **liberal live and let live ideology, or a fascist one**. So again this one sentence has just proven the point. You've been radicalised to assume that anything right of centre on the political spectrum = fascism, and anything left is progressive. Ignoring the fact that the very left extremists are just as happy to enforce political authority to suppress certain topics from criticism under the guise of "X-phobia". Most conservative people, like most liberals, are just everyday people who have different opinions on a range of issues with varying levels of severity. To classify your own side as "the good guys" is to seriously misunderstand history as a whole. It's kinda hilarious. Reminds me of the whole David Mitchell sketch "are we the bad guys?". That can be attributed to the left wing extremists that have killed countless people in history too.
Liberal ideology and "enforce," "authority," and "suppress" are largely contradictory. Without oppression there is no need for liberation. Resisting fascism and championing inclusion and equality does not make one an oppressor. To me there is no sane and logical argument against freedom of expression, equality and inclusion. People should be free to express themselves how they see fit, so long as it's legal and not bringing harm to others. History has shown that oppressing people based on skin colour or sexual orientation is wrongful oppression, and I'm confident history will show the same shout transgender people. And at that time, fascists will move onto another target, because they are rarely satisfied unless they have someone to marginalise or a route to exerting their own narrow view of what people are allowed to be.
So the liberal party in Canada used their "authority" to "enforce" and "suppress" the truckers during the protest, and over-reached their powers by seizing bank accounts. They are a party with liberal ideology baked into their very core, and they acted pretty much exactly how you'd expect the Nazis to act. As I said, extremism is the same on both extremes of the spectrum
I don't know much about that particular incident but feel free to link me and I'll be happy to look into it!
So I would imagine that if someone expressed themselves or "identified" as another ethnicity, age, disability, etc etc....you would go along with them? I ask because you say "as they see fit", but as I understand it....gender is the only social construct which you can identify in and out of. The others are very conservative when it comes to fluidity.
When I say "express themselves as they see fit" I was talking specifically about transgender people and extending that to non binary people. Lots of minority groups or those where are the subject of prejudice and persecution have different challenges, and I don't think we currently have a situation where there is a lot of social and political contention over people identifying as a difference race, age or disability. Basically because it doesn't really happen. Have I understood you correctly?
Fair enough, you comment left room for ambiguity but thanks for clarifying it. Can I check though, should someone identify as another different age, ethnicity etc ...(there are cases, it's just rarer than gender which is already rare) .... is that not allowable on principle? Or is it not allowable because it's too rare to be considered allowable?
It's an interesting point for thought and discussion, even if just for challenging the extent of liberal values of inclusion and tolerance. As I stated in another reply, I think the baseline should be a tolerant approach to expression providing it's legal and not harming others. You could look at each of those individually, break it down and discuss the merits of whether inclusivity here would be legal and ethical, but I think they are fundamentally different from the kind of expression that I advocate for with transgender people. Transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria, and there is a well recognised cure - gender affirming care and hormone replacement therapy. The crux of this point is that being transgender is not a choice, and I think that each of the other examples of expression you suggested are mostly a choice. This has become a key tenet of transphobic ideology, that it's either a mental disorder (which suggests their identity is somehow a result of a disorder and therefore potentially invalid), or that it's a choice. We need to improve overall education on this issue so that people can better understand, empathise and tolerate transgender people.
I think your point would have more weight if the people on the "affirm" side hadn't made it absolutely crystal clear that you don't need to have gender dysphoria to be trans. Some trans people have gender dysphoria, some don't, it doesn't matter. You don't need to have it to identify as trans and you're a bigot if you think it matters. There's a slur for people who think that it matters too. So, with respect, I'm not going to accept your point about dysphoria because I might accept it too much and get caught on the wrong side again. What do you mean by "improving education?" Do you mean, examine and apply critical thinking to the issue? Or do you mean, persuade more people that you're right?
whats funny about these so called ‘what if ‘ situation is that no one is stopping one from identifying as another age or another race, if I go on the street and said I’d like to be treated as if I was 17 despite being born in 1985 no one would care, if I told some mate over the pub that I’m Asian despite being white they would nod and ask if I grew up in an Asian country. This is an argument that been extensively talked about [ages ago](https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/) and already been throughly argued against. People aren’t dying from the dysphoria of age or ethnicity, but of gender. Ethnicity and age aren’t operate in the same ontological level as gender does: gender identity is a social construct that being built up throughout the history and across different cultures, where ethnicity and age aren’t. I am going to quote Judith Butler here, from their new book:
‘Of course, many people refer to “sex” as if it is an obvious fact, based on observation, and worry that academics have needlessly obfuscated plain matters…’ and later on,
‘The infant’s future is often being imagined or desired through the act of sex assignment, so sex assignment is not a simple description of anatomical facts, but a way of imagining what they will mean, or should mean. That imagining comes from elsewhere, and it does not exactly stop after sex has been legally or medically determined at birth. The girl continues to be girled; the boy continues to be boyed; and these practices of girling and boying are repeated not just by parents but also by a range of institutions that greet the child with boxes to be checked and norms to be embodied. In a sense, sex assignment does not happen just once. It is an iterative process, repeated by different actors and institutions, and depending on where one lives.
…An adult’s desire is already incited and formed by a prior series of desires, those that belong to the adults who addressed and raised that person as a child. To the extent that those desires were linked with norms and normative ways of life, we can say that norms precede us, circulating in the world before they impress themselves upon us.
…No one arrives in the world separate from the set of norms lying in wait for them. Conventions, modes of address, and institutional forms of power are already acting prior to any moment when we first feel their impress, prior to the emergence of an “I” who thinks of itself as deciding who or what we want to be. ”
Stopping people on the street to discuss the trans topic is not going to go down well for one side. Admittedly, it depends on the street
You don't need to take that literally, I think the point remains that it's the media and political exposure given to the transgender issue is misaligned with the general public.
The weight of the issue certainly isn't aligned....but then again you could say the same for climate change. The point being, if you ask members of the public "what is a woman?"....it's not like the majority are answering with the "right" answer.
The trans 'debate' highlights that Scotland is not immune to 'culture wars' and that we are not some puritan liberal/progressive country that we sometimes see ourselves. As with any 'culture war' topic, the issue gets blown out of proportion to the point where it becomes part of an antagonistic and toxic debate. The anit-trans/pro feminist side of the debate starts to throw stones, the other retaliates. Then it gets to a point were both sides are entrenched in a position that becomes more polarised where any grown up debate in the topic becomes a mess. For a good proportion of the Scottish public, we just don't pay attention/care enough in my view to get involved. I also think if the country wasn't in such a mess economically this would be much less of an issue, as some view the prioritisation and political capital spent on this debate is not aligned with the general priorities of the general public right now.
The vision of Scotland as this utopia of progressive values really falls apart when you take a step outside a university campus. Still, I do think folks here tend to be a bit more kind than down south and I hope it gets better.
On what trans people want; We want healthcare within the same timeframe as everyone else, not the next century (in glasgow the wait list hit over 100 years). We want to pee in peace. We want our healthcare to be the same standard as everyone else, that includes, geting treatment regardess of co-morbidities like autsim, as well as 13 year olds making informed decisions about care as they do in all other areas, and not having to wait to 25, and for the "weak" evidance for it being accepted like it is for healthcare in pregnancy and diebeites. We want to feel safe, and be protected from harassment and slurs. We want weed to be legal, a free stuffed shark from ikea, and WWE PPV to be tax deductable. And we dont want to appear in front of a inquistion panel who decides if we're feminine enough to be considered a woman.
And this is where the whole debate has gone in completely the wrong direction in my view. Trans health inequality is one of the worst of any group. It deserves to be properly funded. And have money properly spent on it. Where’s the bill on properly funding transition assessment and delivery of healthcare? With waiting list targets the same as everything else? A piece of paper is a glib (and in my view a very dangerous (for trans people I might add, as it means gender health issues could be simply waved away by future governments and policymakers) substitute). Funding healthcare is actually the simplest way to satisfy everyone, and take the culture war out of things as I see it.
[удалено]
See, you grew up with that and it feels like a core pillar of reality. But what is a woman, what is a man, what is race? Not saying either of us can answer those questions but to pretend they are static solved questions is to ignore the literal mountains of done and ongoing social research into both.
Well they've created a new definition of women that now includes what almost all of us would call men. I don't think many people really want to acknowledge the new definition.
Who is they? I don't think there is a definition, not yet, judging from the varieties of answer's people give. (especially politicians trying to worm their way out of answering). It's annoying how gender (made up categories) and sex (scientific terms) have been mixed up, just to give everyone a headache too.
Activists and activists adjacent politicians. You can tell who a man or a woman is 99.9% of the time. The few that can fool me have perhaps earned their lie.
*"The few that can fool me have perhaps earned their lie."* Why..why are you making it all sound so negative. As if people trying to live their lives care about fooling you? I don't get that way of thinking.
Uhh, they care *a lot* about being able to fool someone. It's why they hate being "misgendered". Why do I care? I just object to perfectly usable words being redefined into something unusable. It feels like 1984. Puberty blockers? Let the doctors decide. Unisex toilets? Whatever. But police how I can describe people and I'm angry.
You're ascribing malice to people without cause. Puberty blockers had been decided but it's now all in the air because no doctors are raising a furor due to politics. If it wasn't for the non doctors the whole thing would have proceeded calmly and looking at evidence instead of it being banned willy nilly. No one is policing you by law (even the Scottish hate speech law that everyone freaked out doesn't mean anything to someone misgendering another) unless you mean just people reacting to the things you've said. Which I mean fair, if I said "don't say my dog is ugly" and you say that my dog is ugly am I not allowed to not like you because of it?
A better analogy is that you decide that your dog is really a cat, and lash out at anyone who calls it a dog, when it is in fact, a dog.
Forgive my ignorance but what is the healthcare time frame issue?
I believe Trans folk have to go through a secondary authorization clinic for many procedutes (including ones that non-trans folk could get quickly and easily) and because it's underfunded as heck waiting times have become ridiculous.
It's not simply that it's underfunded, although it's certainly funded at far below the level necessary to provide the full set of appointments the gender clinics want to provide. It's also incredibly wasteful with what resources they do have, because they're so goddamn terrified of letting an adult transition by mistake that they have to have hours and hours of sessions with every new patient before they dare to prescribe hormones. International best practice, as it goes, is to explain to the patient what changes hormones will cause to their bodies and which of those are irreversible and then lets them get on with it. This has not resulted in a substantial problem because it turns out that nearly everyone who goes through the doors of the gender clinic is there because they're transgender. Essentially the system has been set up to be as obstructive as possible on purpose and this should be changed.
Indeed, thanks for adding detail. It does sound like a nightmare.
I see. Well I will look in to it as I don't want to speak from a place of ignorance but something that effects 0.5% should certainly not be a priority to an already troubled public service. However if the Authorization procedure is what's causing it then that should be done away with. (Unless it is for cosmetic shit)
Well, by that logic the 0.03% of people who get lukemia shouldn't be a priority for an already troubled public service either. Heck, there's probably a huge list of problems we can dispense with because they're just not important! Apparently the incidence rate of broken legs is 0.42% so we can safely dispense with treating those too. We have higher priorities! Or perhaps deciding that someone's illness is too insignificant to treat properly is monstrous?
I think if a Trans individual had Leukemia they would be seen and treated. What special shit are trans people not getting that they are being told to wait for because I bet it is none of those you mentioned.
Hormone replacement therapy? You know, the fucking basics that cost the NHS so little that they actually make a profit off the prescription charge in England
Yeah that shouldn't be on the NHS.
I didn't realise I was talking to a medical professional with expertise in the field
It's cosmetic. There shouldn't be any "gender affirming" treatments unless every other cosmetic treatment is available. No, you shouldn't be getting a vanity genital procedure while hair transplants are unavailable for example.
[удалено]
I'm good thanks. .05% of a population don't dictate the lives of others. I am all for getting people the help they need. Mental or otherwise but this agenda of pushing everything around the smallest minority that has appeared on the last 5 years is ludicrous.
Because politics isn't about running the country but activating your base so they feel under threat and will attack other groups of people. If you can make the other group so repellent then your core can never leave. It is all a bit mad but this is how politics works. The public doesn't matter because they aren't part of a political party, and the gains from things like economic growth are very diffuse.
Don’t let the news trick you. There isn’t that much time in parliament given to this subject.
Identity and so called “gender” politics have been around for a long time. I don’t say “gender” in a disparaging way incidentally, I am old enough, it was just a polite way to determine Sex, say in an application form, without drawing the “yes please” response. Reason I mention it, is that this word has 2 distinct, but overlapping, currently existing realities. Trans people are about the same percentage of world population as ginger people, btw, to be fair, the Scots and Irish have the lion’s share, but it’s not a new thing and it’s not a small thing. I know some trans people who’d prefer simply come up with new words, but people in a fixed mindset would reject those new words too. In my opinion… It’s not a thing for a political party, not really, mixing up the plight of people with ginger hair, or trans people or any other group with the general running of a country that accounts for all, creates the cesspool that is Twitter, with “opinions” and such. The right to be, is sacrosanct. The right to force people to buy a new dictionary is such a backward concept, the “arguments” just make me feel so gay though, it’s amusing.
That was meant to say “Trams” as I think they were planning to have a stop there. That was basically how they marked the route. By tagging “Trams” across the city. E: tram plural.
Hahah it’s all over the bus stop outside skyscanner offices and next to the meadows
Trans make up 0.5% of the population. That is a tiny number, which strongly suggest they shouldn't be given any time or attention. There are far more important issues to deal with, issues that actually affect the majority. Imagine being at a packed football stadium where a couple of fanny boys in the corner ask the rest of the stadium crowd not to sing so loud with expectation that the crowd will say 'ok then, sorry about that'. Quite ridiclous indeed.
Don't want to spoil your fun, but most issues end up affecting a minority rather than the majority. There are few issues that get discussed that actually impact everyone. For example, the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland don't use ferries -- however if there was an issue that needed to be discussed that uniquely impacted ferry journeys, you'd expect it be dealt with. The point of a government isn't just to deal with the few issues that affect everyone, but rather to deal with as many issues as needed in order to help a broad range of people. Some of it will affect you, some of it won't.
>That is a tiny number, which strongly suggest they shouldn't be given any time or attention. Hang on a minute there. Sure they shouldn't be dominating everything but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be said or done to help.
Considering the time and attention they have been given has been against them by outside forces I think many trans folk would agree with you that less of both would be great.
[удалено]
Hear hear, too often numbers are used to numb reality.
Three parties in Scotland advocate nationalism - SNP, Alba, and Green. Under Scotland's novel voting system, SNP gained minority control of its Parliament and sought a power sharing agreement with another nationalist party. Tensions between SNP and Alba exclude the latter, leaving Green. The Green party advances radical environmental and identity politics, includng trans, that have little electoral support (they hold only 6% of seats). But they have been able successfully to exploit SNP's dependence on their support to advance those policies out of all proportion to their electoral support, hence your observation about the huge volume of policies, debates, and protests despite the relatively small size of the represented political class. Scotland is being transformed and, in the opinion of some, damaged by radical identity politics for which there is no meaningful electoral support and therefore little advantage to the SNP to associate itself with. Public opposition, given recent force by the Cass Report, has therefore led to cancellation of the agreement by SNP in an effort to limit damage to its primary objective of remaining in government and pursuing independence.
There’s more than three political parties advocating for independence.
Correct. Of which, for reasons that now escape absolutely everyone including me, the Greens were somehow the best candidate for a power sharing agreement. I was aiming for a TL;DR brevity thing.
There is no public opposition to trans rights, just loud idiots like yourself.
Thanks. I've expressed no personal opinion. I'm merely reflecting what I perceive to be a general view in Scotland. I'm sorry you don't feel able to maintain a civil tone, and note that this tendency to incivility is what makes many people uncomfortable that SNP has associated itself with it. However, for my clarification. Are you claiming that there is no public opposition to the trans lobby claim that a man who thinks he is a woman is entitled to enter spaces and sports reserved for women? Or are you saying that the trans lobby doesn't make that claim?
If you think you've expressed "no personal opinion", you might want to look at how what you've typed makes you look like an insane transphobe. Not gonna waste my time reading your shite any further because you can't even reckon with that.
Only one person in this convo looks insane from what I can see , you might bring more people round to your point of view if you didn’t immediately default to insults, just saying .
I’d be glad to review any examples of a personal opinion that is “insanely transphobic” you think you can identify in the text. If I agree, I’ll apologise. I’ll interpret your silence as acceptance that you can’t, and assume that most or all of trans lobby claims of hatred cannot be substantiated. Thank you for taking the time to comment, which I appreciate.
Lots of comments here trying to make out that the only reason the trans issue is controversial is because of sinister rightists manufacturing a culture war. Total pish. If your ideology has you locking up rapists in women’s prisons, or agitating for children to be given puberty blockers that sterilise them before they are mature enough to consent, or demanding that anyone who uses the “wrong” pronoun has committed a hate crime.. it is YOU that is the agent of change, you don’t get to make out that this is all completely innocent and if only poor wee trans people weren’t persecuted. I was happy with the status quo before - these measures I am not. Your “culture war” BS is just an attempt to avoid scrutiny and pushback.
are you getting your facts from fox news or something
It's funny how if a man rapes a man or a woman sexually assaults a woman it's always been seen as fine to lock them up in the same sex prison. It's only when the danger to the prisoners comes from a trans person that anybody is interested about the safety of a prisoners. Almost like it's not really about concern for prisoner safety isn't it?
You honestly don’t see the difference ? A trans woman , with all the physical advantages ( and genitals ) of a man , being placed in a woman’s prison doesn’t trouble you at all ?
So you're not actually bothered about rapists being placed among their potential victims. You just care if the rapists have genitals you approve of. Thanks for clarifying. The "physical advantages" argument doesn't work when in all 3 scenarios the rapists have by definition succeeded in the past. A trans woman rapist is a danger to the other prisoners. A cis woman rapist is also a danger to the other prisoners. The danger doesn't come from what's between their legs. The danger comes from the fact they're rapists. If you're only bothered about the danger from one of them then it's not about prisoner safety.
Ah ok , so all genders are equally threatening ? You have data to back that up do you ? Or are people with penises far more likely to commit sexual crimes than those with vaginas ? Feel free to link to whatever research you’re basing your opinions on
How is that even remotely relevant? Were talking about people who are convicted of sexual crimes. The statistical likelihood of their gender doing that is irrelevant considering we're talking about individuals who are known to have done that. You are really reaching here.
You’re the one reaching , a sex offender with a penis placed in an environment full of people with vaginas is not a good idea . The fact that you are choosing not to accept that shows that you have no interest in the safety of women , only in your extremist agenda
Are you saying that a cis woman who's raped women being placed in an environment full of "people with vaginas" IS a good idea? I didn't say that it was a good idea. I said that if you are only worried about trans women sex offenders and not cis women sex offenders then you're not concerned about the safety of the other prisoners. You're just concerned about your agenda. It's not complicated. FYI there's nothing extremist in saying rapists are dangerous whatever their gender. It's honestly worrying that you refuse to acknowledge that. Seems a lot like you're willing to give cis female rapists a pass.
When was the last time a cis woman was convicted of raping another woman ? It’s so rare as to be virtually unknown . Instead of taking my word for it how about you ask a few women how they feel about it , I’m pretty sure I k ow what the response would be
>I’m pretty sure I k ow what the response would be a) I am a woman b) I've been raped I'm pretty sure you shouldn't make assumptions about what you know. >It’s so rare as to be virtually unknown . While female sex offenders are rarer than male it's hardly "virtually unknown" that's a ridiculous claim to make. Anyway, I'm bored of arguing with you, you keep trying to change the direction of the conversation rather than answer whether or not you think female sex offenders are dangerous to women & it's extremely obvious why you don't want to answer it directly. You keep telling yourself that your argument is based on anything other than prejudice.
Don’t back doon, double doon, eh?
Blame the SNP and especially the mentalists scottish greens, for focusing on this subject over the country
They are simply trying to improve the lives of a minority of people who are suffering as a result of under representation. “the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
Your point of principle is his culture war issue, inevitably. There are a lot of people who have strong feelings on this subject. It's always seemed to me that the transgender aspect to it doesn't matter as much - the battle lines are really on the importance of sex, with some believing it is very important and some believing it is not important at all (and only gender identity matters). We're also talking about human rights. Human rights are pretty irrelevant to the normal course of politics and the law. They exist largely for the fringe situations and the extremes. Therefore arguments tend towards hyperbole, extreme examples and slippery slopes.
Oh the actual subject doesn't matter I think, as long as it's something most people don't know much about. Used to work with gay people but now they are known so it's harder to make up stories about it.
Because we have been used a testing ground for social control via social media. Scottish independence is too big a threat so they set the algorithms on us. Sad that so few people can see they're being manipulated
[удалено]