you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bife_de_lomo[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It is a reassuring step in the right direction that the mainstream UK Left press is starting to resist the unquestioning support of gender ideology, but the post has made me query things a little deeper.

The article recommends compromise, but I am struggling to see what rights people want in terms of their so-called gender identity that aren't already granted to them under sex-based protections under the UK Equality Act. Anything to do with presentation is covered, changing your name is a no-brainer, anyone can marry anyone else.

So can my fellow Saiditors halp me identify any good-faith reasons why "gender" should be a consideration at all? Why has The Observer stopped at a compromise, rather than coming to the conclusion that every other "peaked" person has?

[–]Datachost 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

but I am struggling to see what rights people want in terms of their so-called gender identity that aren't already granted to them under sex-based protections under the UK Equality Act. Anything to do with presentation is covered, changing your name is a no-brainer, anyone can marry anyone else.

Which is why the GRA needs removing entirely, rather than expanding. The GRA was initially passed on two grounds, firstly for privacy reasons (which are debatable, privacy ends the second it starts to affect other people) and the other as a workaround for same sex marriage not having recognition at the time. Since the passing of marriage equality it's become legislation that is unnecessary at best, downright obfuscating at worst since it clashes with the Equality Act as shown in the current debate in Scotland.

The whole thing is a farce anyway. The SNP have packed the courts (Lady Haldane who made the decision was personally recommended by Sturgeon for the position), they've forged an alliance with the Greens, giving them positions they shouldn't have in return for supporting their cause and they've packed the commission (which just goes to show why a separate house is the better method of legislative oversight).

I don't think the SNP even care about Self-ID they're just using it as a means to an end for independence. As things are now either their new law will clash with the Equality Act, which will lead to Westminster stepping in or the court decision gets pushed right to the Supreme Court. Either way the SNP gets to whine about poor wee Scotland getting trodden on by those bastard English again.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think the SNP even care about Self-ID they're just using it as a means to an end for independence. As things are now either their new law will clash with the Equality Act, which will lead to Westminster stepping in or the court decision gets pushed right to the Supreme Court. Either way the SNP gets to whine about poor wee Scotland getting trodden on by those bastard English again.

This can’t be stated enough. It seems that everything the SNP does is done to provoke a challenge either from Westminster or to the Supreme Court. Their reform of speech laws, which would criminalise speech in one’s own home, a massive overreach that would almost certainly lead to a SC challenge is another example.

[–]bife_de_lomo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. Hopefully the momentum isn't lost in the current mess!

[–]oatcake 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think the SNP even care about Self-ID they're just using it as a means to an end for independence.

You have this completely back-to-front.

And, if allowed, they will keep whining about poor wee Scotland getting trodden on, forever and ever, achieving absolutely nothing (see the last 8 years for reference).