Transgender Thread.

[Ialyrn]

If you must have a literalistic way of reading the word, then you can also look at it as a name that is dead - that old name is no longer living and descriptive. It describes the person that was, not the person who is now. Just because someone or something (in this case a name) is dead doesn't mean you have to forget them or necessarily wanted to kill them. Their passing may have been part of the natural order of things. This requires that you read the word as "deadname"-ing rather than dead-naming.

This is actually fairly accurate to be fair, at least in the UK. Once you change your name via a legal process (deed poll or statuary decleration), then your original name given by your parents is legally "dead". While that old name may currently appear on your birth certificate, you can no longer leagally use it at all. You must also inform the DVLA, HMRC/Government, Bank (and anywhere else) that you originally used your old name to change the details over to the new name. Failure to do so is actually considered a case of fruad, as your old name is legally dead.
But that doesnt mean we dont acknowledge our past, its still part of our lives. Though each one of us have differing feelings on our past, and different emotions placed upon it. Some can get really distrought over their past before transistion, some, like myself. Are ok with it, within reason. Some just dont mind at all. So it is all really on the individual and how comfortable they are talking openly about their past and old name.

People who I have met since transistion do not know what my name was from birth, as they only need to know my name as it currently stands. This is how it usually is for most transgender people. So distress can come into it when old friends/acquaintances and new friends/acquaintances meet and the old drops the deadname.

I think it's always going to be somewhere from rude, to disgustingly malicious to deliberately use someone's old name. In addressing the word "deadnaming" (a word not invented by the perpetrators of the practice but rather by victims and allies of victims), I wanted to question whether or not it's a fair and healthy umbrella term. Do we even know that Elliot wants the Ellen-period history/name to be considered dead? I think it's an extreme and presumptuous tag to put on someone else's experience

It can be highly distressing to be dead named, as it can often occur in a public place. It feels like attention is being drawn to the fact that you was once one way and are now another way. Its an uncomfortable feeling, and is considered as a form of outing someone.
Though as you said, it can happen purely as a mistake. Either a relitive having a slip of the tounge, or an old friend that you have not seen for a long time and has no idea of the situation.

Though in my experience, it does often usually occur more with malice attached from somone who disagres with it all.


What I find worse though, is people refusing to call you any name, or use any pronouns for you. Which my grandad did to me. Treated me like an "it", a "thing". Thats how it made me feel. Sufficed to say, I have zero contact with him.
People tell me all the time that "its just a generational thing", but thats just pure tripe. Its an individual thing. My parters nan, grandad and uncle. All very similar ages to my own grandad, all grew up in the same period. Accepted me without an issue at all. My partners nan was also a devout catholic.

The irrational fear of penises in women's restrooms has come up in this thread. This man doesn't even have one. (That he doesn't have one and the moral panic surrounding transgender restroom use is likely why he was instructed to use the restroom that most corresponds to his genitalia.)

I remember that discussion very well, it caused a lot of heated and discussion that grew rather unfriendly, as some (myself included), got way to personal over the discussion and arguemtents and nastiness ensued. As everyone in here is aware, its a highly sensitive and personal topic for myself with being transgender. And at the time, I let my emotions overule my ability to discuss. Its why I dissapeared for so long from this entire forum.

I did point out back then that what happened to the trans man in that news report above, would most likely happen if trans men and trans women was forced to use the restroom of their biologial/physical sex.
The focus for this toilet discussion in this thread was predominantly aimed towards trans women like myself, so I pointed out that trans men exist also, and that they usually tend to look very male once on testosterone for a while. Which would most likely cause women a lot of distress if a trans man used a womans restroom/changing facility. People focus on that outer appearence to much, then allow themselves to be filled with fear, disgust, and anger. Its whats visible. Its why I get major disphoria over facial hair, which for me is taking an age to get fully removed perminantly.

Gender nuatral facilitates have helped a lot, but recently the UK government added new rules that will require any new offices, schools, hospitals, entertainment facilities (so on and so on), must have single sex only toilets from now on. So this debate is only going to grow and get worse.
What I dont know at the moment, is if they will require gender neutral facilities to similary be removed or banned from being used, only time will tell on that front.

UK ministers to make single-sex toilets compulsory in new public buildings

Government sources confirm move to curb the sole installation of gender-neutral facilities

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scaff]

What I find worse though, is people refusing to call you any name, or use any pronouns for you. Which my grandad did to me. Treated me like an "it", a "thing". Thats how it made me feel. Sufficed to say, I have zero contact with him.
People tell me all the time that "its just a generational thing", but thats just pure tripe. Its an individual thing. My parters nan, grandad and uncle. All very similar ages to my own grandad, all grew up in the same period. Accepted me without an issue at all. My partners nan was also a devout catholic.

Indeed, it's a people thing, and it always has been.

What gets me about deadnames and idiots insisting on using them, is they are the same people who don't throw a fit and insist that Darth Vader still be referred to as Anakin Skywalker, and for older generations they have no issue with calling this actor John Wayne (who was also an utter piece of ****) are operating on a level of hypocrisy that is mind-blowing.

Ditto the majority of actors and a good number of musicians since forever.

Stage name - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To put it in basic terms anyone who is happy to refer to John Wayne as John Wayne with throwing a tantrum and insisting he be called Marion Morrison (insert any other actor, musician, etc. with a stage name), yet still deadname trans individuals is a bigot, plain and simple.

 

[Moglet]

Gender nuatral facilitates have helped a lot, but recently the UK government added new rules that will require any new offices, schools, hospitals, entertainment facilities (so on and so on), must have single sex only toilets from now on. So this debate is only going to grow and get worse.
What I dont know at the moment, is if they will require gender neutral facilities to similary be removed or banned from being used, only time will tell on that front.

UK ministers to make single-sex toilets compulsory in new public buildings

Government sources confirm move to curb the sole installation of gender-neutral facilities

www.theguardian.com

That's not quite accurate, it is designed to stop buildings from being built solely with gender-neutral facilities. In fact they mention in the press release about it that universal toilets should also be provided if there is space:

Separate unisex (or universal) toilets should be provided if there is space, but should not come at the expense of female toilets.

All public buildings to have separate male and female toilets

All new public buildings should have separate male and female toilets, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has announced.

www.gov.uk

 

[Ialyrn]

That's not quite accurate, it is designed to stop buildings from being built solely with gender-neutral facilities. In fact they mention in the press release about it that universal toilets should also be provided if there is space:

Fair if they have recommened that and they are provided still, but we do still need to take into account that money and personal feeling may well play a factor in this. Having to plumb in 4 different types of restroom/changing facility (mens, womens, disabled/baby changing, neutral), will add in a massive expense. So there is a chance a lot of places will just ditch the neutral facilities to save some money and just say "there wasnt enough space". Or they will feel they dont agree with neutral spaces and just say "there wasnt enough space". So unfortunatly, this debate is just going to rage on and on. "should be provided" isnt the same as "must be provided".

So while there is a provision included for something in the governments legislation and press release over it, it doesnt mean that is what will happen. Which is why I said "only time will tell on that front".

I hope that helps explain my point of view on this.

I transistioned a decade ago. Socially, legally, and medically. Ive never set foot in a womens restroom or changing facility for fear of reprisals. In my local area, I know where there are safe to use single occupency rest rooms to use. If I am not in a place I know, I hold it in. Often to the point of discomforat and pain, for the same fear of reprisal. I dont go swimming, even though I love been in the water. For the same reasons. Ive been abused and attacked just for been transgender before, I live my life in fear because of it.

 

[Moglet]

Fair if they have recommened that and they are provided still, but we do still need to take into account that money and personal feeling may well play a factor in this. Having to plumb in 4 different types of restroom/changing facility (mens, womens, disabled/baby changing, neutral), will add in a massive expense. So there is a chance a lot of places will just ditch the neutral facilities to save some money and just say "there wasnt enough space". Or they will feel they dont agree with neutral spaces and just say "there wasnt enough space". So unfortunatly, this debate is just going to rage on and on. "should be provided" isnt the same as "must be provided".

It's certainly a concern given how rare gender neutral toilets already are in the UK. I've only ever seen them in a gay bar*, the Tate Modern, and the offices where I work.

*and you haven't lived until you've walked in to the bathroom to find a group of girls complimenting a drag queen on their boobs

 

[Brett]

Indeed, it's a people thing, and it always has been.

What gets me about deadnames and idiots insisting on using them, is they are the same people who don't throw a fit and insist that Darth Vader still be referred to as Anakin Skywalker, and for older generations they have no issue with calling this actor John Wayne (who was also an utter piece of ****) are operating on a level of hypocrisy that is mind-blowing.

Ditto the majority of actors and a good number of musicians since forever.

Stage name - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To put it in basic terms anyone who is happy to refer to John Wayne as John Wayne with throwing a tantrum and insisting he be called Marion Morrison (insert any other actor, musician, etc. with a stage name), yet still deadname trans individuals is a bigot, plain and simple.

I recently listened to Behind the Bastards' three part podcast about John Wayne. I had suspected he was probably not a good guy, but I had no idea how much of a piece of crap he was.

 

[Scaff]

I recently listened to Behind the Bastards' three part podcast about John Wayne. I had suspected he was probably not a good guy, but I had no idea how much of a piece of crap he was.

On so, so, so many levels.

 

[LeMansAid]

I did wonder how long it would take until something like this occurred, sadly. Forcing people to use the restroom that matches their AGAB is very dangerous for not just trans people but cis people who happen to look a certain way too.

Goths, hippies, people wearing Trump hats..... People will be targeted for all sorts of reasons.

In taking your point further it shows that it's not really even a trans issue, it's an issue with certain people/groups being unwilling to accept difference and respect a basic human right - just as @TexRex is correct in a similar way by stating that having a penis or not is not the issue, but rather whether or not an individual wants to cause harm to innocent others.

 

[Aphelion]

Welp, its taken me a fair while to truly come to terms with it, but it turns out I'm totally a trans woman.

Ive avoided this thread for a long time out of fear of being shamed, but its so awesome to finally come in here and see not only other people in this community like me, but even Cis people hanging around to fight for our right to be proud.

Im finally at the stage where I desperately want to begin transitioning, but its absolutely terrifying. Coming out to my parents is terrifying. I really just dont know where to begin, but again, knowing there are people out there willing to fight in my corner is humbling, and I hope that one day I will be comfortable enough in my own skin to do the same for others.

The hardest thing for me is knowing so deeply in my heart that my experience is rational, but having to explain my deepest darkest secrets to some people just to get them to understand me on any level. It feels like punching a brick wall with my bare hands, but I litterally have no choice. I simply cannot continue repressing my personality in order to make the people around me comfortable.

But let me tell you, finally being open about it is like breathing fresh air after spending the last 5 years in an unventilated prison cell. It's huge, and I've already received so much support from my friends who, this time last year, I had convinced myself would never understand.

So again, thank you to the people willing to understand. It means more than you know.

 

[Com Fox]

What gets me about deadnames and idiots insisting on using them, is they are the same people who don't throw a fit and insist that Darth Vader still be referred to as Anakin Skywalker,

Is that even a fair analogy? Return of the Jedi highlights why both Obi-Wan and Anakin are wrong to consider Darth Vader a separate identity and with all the extra media coming it. The whole Anakin, Darth Vader separate identity thing is more like a coping mechanism, both for Obi Wan to refuse to believe Anakin would hurt lots of people and Anakin because he lost everything before pretending to be someone else.

This doesn't sound like Transgender experience where it's more they are identifying with who they truly are all along. In fact seems quite the opposite. I will always try my best to refer Transgender people to how they want to because that's who they truly are, I will always consider Anakin and Darth Vader the same identity and person because Darth Vader was just a literal and figurative mask.

Welp, its taken me a fair while to truly come to terms with it, but it turns out I'm totally a trans woman.

Ive avoided this thread for a long time out of fear of being shamed, but its so awesome to finally come in here and see not only other people in this community like me, but even Cis people hanging around to fight for our right to be proud.

Im finally at the stage where I desperately want to begin transitioning, but its absolutely terrifying. Coming out to my parents is terrifying. I really just dont know where to begin, but again, knowing there are people out there willing to fight in my corner is humbling, and I hope that one day I will be comfortable enough in my own skin to do the same for others.

The hardest thing for me is knowing so deeply in my heart that my experience is rational, but having to explain my deepest darkest secrets to some people just to get them to understand me on any level. It feels like punching a brick wall with my bare hands, but I litterally have no choice. I simply cannot continue repressing my personality in order to make the people around me comfortable.

But let me tell you, finally being open about it is like breathing fresh air after spending the last 5 years in an unventilated prison cell. It's huge, and I've already received so much support from my friends who, this time last year, I had convinced myself would never understand.

So again, thank you to the people willing to understand. It means more than you know.

I hope it goes well for you

 

[Scaff]

Is that even a fair analogy? Return of the Jedi highlights why both Obi-Wan and Anakin are wrong to consider Darth Vader a separate identity and with all the extra media coming it. The whole Anakin, Darth Vader separate identity thing is more like a coping mechanism, both for Obi Wan to refuse to believe Anakin would hurt lots of people and Anakin because he lost everything before pretending to be someone else.

This doesn't sound like Transgender experience where it's more they are identifying with who they truly are all along. In fact seems quite the opposite. I will always try my best to refer Transgender people to how they want to because that's who they truly are, I will always consider Anakin and Darth Vader the same identity and person because Darth Vader was just a literal and figurative mask.

It's not meant to be a direct analogy, rather just point out the hypocrisy of choice some make with regard to deadnames.

 

[LeMansAid]

I wish we had an angry emoji like Facebook but no amount of emoting will help Indiana women (and young girls apparently) if these lunatics get their way. Shining a light on them won't work if not enough people who are in a position to do something about this care enough.

(Quote lifted from the abortion thread)

I'm curious...... Have you just not thought to change your language? Are you stating "women" and "girls" in a biological sex kind of way, instead of a gender kind of way? Logically, plenty of biological females that identify as male will be able to become pregnant. Given that, I'm surprised at how widespread the usage of words like "woman", "girl" and "mother" remain when referring to general concepts relating to pregnancy.

Please note that yours was just the most convenient post to quickly grab. I'm not trying to single you out, nor am I trying to hit you, or anyone else with a "gotcha". I started writing up a post for the abortion thread the other day and found myself steering clear of gender-specific terms. When I realised that I was doing that I also realised that people on here who I'd more likely expect to feel the need to adjust their language had not done so.

 

[UKMikey]

(Quote lifted from the abortion thread)

I'm curious...... Have you just not thought to change your language? Are you stating "women" and "girls" in a biological sex kind of way, instead of a gender kind of way? Logically, plenty of biological females that identify as male will be able to become pregnant. Given that, I'm surprised at how widespread the usage of words like "woman", "girl" and "mother" remain when referring to general concepts relating to pregnancy.

Please note that yours was just the most convenient post to quickly grab. I'm not trying to single you out, nor am I trying to hit you, or anyone else with a "gotcha". I started writing up a post for the abortion thread the other day and found myself steering clear of gender-specific terms. When I realised that I was doing that I also realised that people on here who I'd more likely expect to feel the need to adjust their language had not done so.

I was referring to specific cases like the 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an emergency abortion. If I've inadvertently caused you or anyone else offence by not making my language inclusive enough, I apologise but it's not intentional.

 

[TexRex]

Absent direct stimulus, such as a particular individual who has the capacity to bear offspring naturally that explicitly identifies as something other than a girl or woman, I don't think it's unreasonable to default to those descriptors commonly associated with individuals who have the capacity to bear offspring naturally. I also don't think defaulting in this manner conflicts with acceptance of those who may explicitly identify as something other than a girl or woman. Wilfully denying how one identifies is certainly a dick move, of course.

If the want for an alternate descriptor is genuine, I suppose one that invokes a natural bodily function--the shedding of the uterine lining--already exists...but then I'm given to understand it's deeply misogynistic and likely to cause offense. I'm certainly not keen to use it even in an angered disposition.

I proposed one, "uterans," in a mostly unserious post* remarking on the compelled birthing stance of the contemporary American right wing, but I recognize that not every individual who has a uterus, however they identify notwithstanding, has the capacity to bear offspring naturally, and so even that tongue-in-cheek descriptor isn't ideal.

*

Access to the uterus for the purposes of procreation must be granted at all times.

How far are we from the prohibition of obstetrics practice so as to inhibit detection of harm or defect?

Captive breeding? Obviously you start with the non-binary uterans because they're not deserving of basic rights, then you go after the lesbians because they willfully reject procreation with their relentless hedonistic scissoring. Finally you go after the tomboys because...reasons.

 

[LeMansAid]

I was referring to specific cases like the 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an emergency abortion. If I've inadvertently caused you or anyone else offence by not making my language inclusive enough, I apologise but it's not intentional.

I don't know whether or not you sensed attitude in my post but I'm sensing attitude in yours. I went out of my way to explain that my post was made out of genuine interest, I'll be disappointed if that was truly met with nothing more than defensiveness and sarcasm.

With what I view to be true liberalism within the sex/gender realm, the question of whether or not "mother", "girl", etc. are appropriate terms is essentially a moot one. I was interested to learn what people with the more common take on gender liberalism thought about those terms, specifically within the context of pregnancy. You're welcome to comment on that.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't know whether or not you sensed attitude in my post but I'm sensing attitude in yours. I went out of my way to explain that my post was made out of genuine interest, I'll be disappointed if that was truly met with nothing more than defensiveness and sarcasm.

I really don't know how much more clearly I could have worded my previous post and frankly struggle to identify the attitude you describe.

Is anyone else here sensing sarcasm in what was intended as a genuine post?

My opinion, if it wasn't clear, pretty much boils down to "people whose rights to control their bodies are being infringed should have those rights upheld and protected" and I feel that to read anything else into my post would be an assumption of bad faith on my part.

 

[LeMansAid]

I really don't know how much more clearly I could have worded my previous post and frankly struggle to identify the attitude you describe.

Is anyone else here sensing sarcasm in what was intended as a genuine post?

Possibly just paranoia borne out of an "us and them" deal I sense in here these days. Sorry.

 

[Danoff]

(Quote lifted from the abortion thread)

I'm curious...... Have you just not thought to change your language? Are you stating "women" and "girls" in a biological sex kind of way, instead of a gender kind of way? Logically, plenty of biological females that identify as male will be able to become pregnant. Given that, I'm surprised at how widespread the usage of words like "woman", "girl" and "mother" remain when referring to general concepts relating to pregnancy.

Please note that yours was just the most convenient post to quickly grab. I'm not trying to single you out, nor am I trying to hit you, or anyone else with a "gotcha". I started writing up a post for the abortion thread the other day and found myself steering clear of gender-specific terms. When I realised that I was doing that I also realised that people on here who I'd more likely expect to feel the need to adjust their language had not done so.

If gender is to be associated with cultural stereotypes, I can completely see why pregnancy and abortion is associated with genders like "woman" and "girl". Because pregnancy and abortion are intimately linked with the female gender and the female sex. If you're a trans man who can still get pregnant, that strikes me as a potential source of dysmorphia. That's not to say that I don't think trans men and boys who can get pregnant don't exist, but it seems like a potential stumbling block for that identity.

To the extent that we need to culturally shift pregnancy and abortion away from the female gender, I think once again we see a degradation of the definition and utility of gender - that's a good thing in my view, but it ultimately undercuts the importance of the whole discussion.

 

[Ialyrn]

If gender is to be associated with cultural stereotypes, I can completely see why pregnancy and abortion is associated with genders like "woman" and "girl". Because pregnancy and abortion are intimately linked with the female gender and the female sex. If you're a trans man who can still get pregnant, that strikes me as a potential source of dysmorphia. That's not to say that I don't think trans men and boys who can get pregnant don't exist, but it seems like a potential stumbling block for that identity.

To the extent that we need to culturally shift pregnancy and abortion away from the female gender, I think once again we see a degradation of the definition and utility of gender - that's a good thing in my view, but it ultimately undercuts the importance of the whole discussion.

I think you mean Dysphoria, not Dysmorphia. They are not the same thing.
Body dysmoripia is a mental health condition where people find flaws in their appearence that are not really there, which leads to depression and self harm in a lot of cases. People with body dysmorphia will go to great lengths to fix those perceived flaws. Often leading to self harm and self multilation. There is also another rarer type called Body Integrity Dysmorphia, and this has lead people to wanting entire healthy limbs removed.

Gender dysphoria is purely a mismatch between the biological sex and gender identity. This means people suffering from gender dysphoria tends to feel discomfort around first and secondry sexual characteristics, such as breast growth for trans men, or facial hair growth for trans women.

Gender dysphoria doesnt effect every trans person the same, some feel it more than others. So it needs to be judged on a case by case basis by the individual going through it, and by the doctors helping them decide how to proceed. So while a trans man might halt their medical transistion to have a child, they may not feel a lot of dysphoria over it as an individual.

I get strong dysphoria over facial hair and body hair growth. Something I am still waiting for help with, the NHS in the UK is exceptionally slow for some trans people. Ive unfortunatly fallen into that gap and I am not getting much help at all.

 

[Moglet]

I get strong dysphoria over facial hair and body hair growth.

This is usually what triggers mine when it comes on too. Last summer there was a period of time when I would shave my neck so aggressively that it would cause lots of cuts and severe rashes, and stubble would be back a few hours later anyway. Hopefully you're able to get some help soon, sadly the NHS is getting worse and worse with trans healthcare. The waiting lists alone are terrifying.

 

[Aphelion]

This is usually what triggers mine when it comes on too. Last summer there was a period of time when I would shave my neck so aggressively that it would cause lots of cuts and severe rashes, and stubble would be back a few hours later anyway. Hopefully you're able to get some help soon, sadly the NHS is getting worse and worse with trans healthcare. The waiting lists alone are terrifying.

Is the NHS the only way to get trans health care in the UK? I live in Australia so I'm unfamiliar with the system there, but that does sound terrifying. I didnt realise how lucky I was...

 

[Moglet]

Is the NHS the only way to get trans health care in the UK? I live in Australia so I'm unfamiliar with the system there, but that does sound terrifying. I didnt realise how lucky I was...

No, you can use private healthcare but it costs quite a lot so it is out of reach of a lot of people. If you stick with the NHS the waiting list for a first appointment can be years and years (the longest I've seen is in the north where some people have waited 5 years). In 2020 the average waiting time was 18 months, and then there's often another wait until you can start treatment.

Info on NHS clinics: https://transhealthuk.noblogs.org/covid-19-gender-identity-clinics/

Rough private clinic costs: https://transhealthuk.noblogs.org/covid-19-private-clinics/

 

[Aphelion]

No, you can use private healthcare but it costs quite a lot so it is out of reach of a lot of people. If you stick with the NHS the waiting list for a first appointment can be years and years (the longest I've seen is in the north where some people have waited 5 years). In 2020 the average waiting time was 18 months, and then there's often another wait until you can start treatment.

Info on NHS clinics: https://transhealthuk.noblogs.org/covid-19-gender-identity-clinics/

Rough private clinic costs: https://transhealthuk.noblogs.org/covid-19-private-clinics/

Again, this is intense. From the time I first decided I needed professional help to the time I definately needed professional help asap was about a month. The care available in Australia is still not fast or attainable enough, and its a damn sight better than that. :/

 

[Ialyrn]

I transistioned socially and medically in 2011, ive literally slipped through every crack imaginable within the NHS. I saw the GIC in London under Dr Barrett. For some reason after autherising HRT, he discharged me from their care. So now my GP is having to fight with NHS england to get anything done, and filing complaints on my behalf for the attrocious way ive been treated by London GIC. No one can say why I was discharged from the GIC, not even Dr Barrett. So I have to go through the whole referal process again.

 

[Moglet]

I transistioned socially and medically in 2011, ive literally slipped through every crack imaginable within the NHS. I saw the GIC in London under Dr Barrett. For some reason after autherising HRT, he discharged me from their care. So now my GP is having to fight with NHS england to get anything done, and filing complaints on my behalf for the attrocious way ive been treated by London GIC. No one can say why I was discharged from the GIC, not even Dr Barrett. So I have to go through the whole referal process again.

I'm so sorry you've had to go through this. A friend of mine has her first appointment at the GIC in London soon and she first asked for a referral 4 years and 10 months ago.

 

[UKMikey]

Today's Google Doodle celebrates Coccinelle's 91st birthday.

Coccinelle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Touring Mars]

The Scottish parliament voted last night to pass a highly controversial 'Gender Recognition Reform (GRR)' bill, a new act of law designed to make it much easier for transgender people to legally change their sex.

The bill passed easily but has been met with some serious criticism from campaigners for women's rights who believe that the bill is not only unnecessary, but undermines current protections for women.

SNP MSP Joanna Cherry is one such opponent of the bill, and another notable opponent is author JK Rowling. However, even the Observer newspaper (the Sunday edition of The Guardian) published an opinion piece last week opposing the bill, which is quite surprising given that The Guardian/Observer is a notably left-leaning/liberal publication with a strong track record of supporting LBGT rights.

The passing of the bill also sets the Scottish Government on a collision course with the UK Government, which will no doubt enrage the SNP/Scottish nationalists (who make up the majority of the Scottish government) as well as transgender people who have campaigned hard for this bill to be passed.

 

[Fezzik]

The passing of the bill also sets the Scottish Government on a collision course with the UK Government, which will no doubt enrage the SNP/Scottish nationalists (who make up the majority of the Scottish government) as well as transgender people who have campaigned hard for this bill to be passed.

Tories can't pass up an opportunity to stoke the fires and appeal to the gammons in their ranks

some critics are unconvinced by their motivation, saying that there are political benefits to the Tories of keeping the transgender rights plans in the headlines for weeks.

They believe that Sturgeon underestimated the degree of opposition to her bill. A YouGov poll for the Times last week claimed that two-thirds of Scots are opposed to its key features. Some Tories believe they can boost their vote in Scotland at the next election if they reduce politics, once again, to culture wars.

The Guardian has been told that a former adviser to Boris Johnson is behind the UK government’s response to the new gender reform laws. Dougie Smith, who coordinated the “war on woke” pursued by the Johnson administration, has been tasked with “weaponising” the issue of trans rights before the next election.

One cabinet source claims the long-term Tory fixer, who is close to Sunak, is acting as “puppet master” to the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, who is fronting the government’s strategy. He was said to be behind Johnson’s strategy to stir divisions on racial, heritage and cultural issues to ally the Tories with working-class voters in “red wall” seats.

hey, it works for the likes of deSantis, and they are probably screwed unless they find a Brexit-like issue to campaign on

 

[HenrySwanson]

The Scottish parliament voted last night to pass a highly controversial 'Gender Recognition Reform (GRR)' bill, a new act of law designed to make it much easier for transgender people to legally change their sex.

The bill passed easily but has been met with some serious criticism from campaigners for women's rights who believe that the bill is not only unnecessary, but undermines current protections for women.

SNP MSP Joanna Cherry is one such opponent of the bill, and another notable opponent is author JK Rowling. However, even the Observer newspaper (the Sunday edition of The Guardian) published an opinion piece last week opposing the bill, which is quite surprising given that The Guardian/Observer is a notably left-leaning/liberal publication with a strong track record of supporting LBGT rights.

The passing of the bill also sets the Scottish Government on a collision course with the UK Government, which will no doubt enrage the SNP/Scottish nationalists (who make up the majority of the Scottish government) as well as transgender people who have campaigned hard for this bill to be passed.

Should be remembered that some have called the Guardian transphobic in the past, although the issues raised in the opinion piece seem valid to me.

 

[Touring Mars]

Nicola Sturgeon is on script as she seeks to pre-empt the UK Government blocking the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill that was passed by the Scottish Government last month.

Both sides are accusing the other of using this issue as a constitutional football, but I think that Sturgeon is hitching her wagon to the wrong post here... many Scottish nationalists may well be infuriated if the UK Government were to use a Section 35 order to block the legislation, but Sturgeon has also infuriated many people, including many nationalists, who disagree with the Scottish Government's GRR Bill.

Indeed, the GRR Bill is proving quite unpopular generally, and hence it seems like an enormous gamble from Sturgeon and the SNP here... perhaps if the GRR Bill were more popular, then they could expect greater public support for a constitutional clash with the UK Government. But as it stands, it could end up backfiring.

-

edit:



edit 2:

In a slightly unfortunately-worded statement, Nicola Sturgeon described the blocking of the GRR Bill by the UK Government as a 'full-frontal attack' on Scottish democracy.

Also, note to future self: don't search for the phrase 'full frontal' on Twitter on a work computer