>

I think the argument was people deciding they were the opposite gender once in the justice system, and in the case of sex crimes they argued it was more of a risk to other inmates if a male sex criminal was transferred to a female prison due to a GRC. Iirc, the amendment was only about sex crimes, not other crimes, so I think the implication was to try and decrease chance of using it to rape women on prison. I don't think the GRC requires you under go medical or hormone treatment, so that'd be my guess at the reasoning. I don't think it had anything to do with continuing treatment but to applying for a GRC while within the system for sex crimes.
Friend who watched it said it was split and decision made by the presiding officer.
It's only 'controversial' to Sky. >

Yeah it's so controversial that even though I live in Scotland this is me hearing of it for the 1st time. 
I am aware of a somewhat controversial bill which wants to mandate female representation on a companies board of directors. The bill will make it so a trans person on the board counts as having a women and some women feel this only serves to marginalise women (from birth) in business. >


some women feel this only serves to marginalise women (from birth) in business.

Those people are what we in the biz call 'incredibly fucking stupid and deranged'
Trans people are at the bottom of every metric for quality of life right next to indigenous people. No one is giving us board of directors positions out of some liberal kindness of their heart but somehow also disdain for cisgender women >


Trans people are at the bottom of every metric for quality of life right next to indigenous people. 

What does this even mean in the context of Scotland where the legislation was passed?
We have reached a strange point in society where people casually blur international borders and laws and no-one seems to notice or care. >

None of these links relate to what I said, who are the Scottish indigenous people you're referring to? >

The word "Scotland" is literally in 3 out of the 4 links they posted and the fourth linked study mentions Scotland immediately. You didn't bother to actually read anything they linked to, did ya? >

In Europe, the Indigenous people are the majority so the comment above that trans people are as vulnerable as majority (white) Scots doesn't make sense in this context. (and is unintentionally problematic) I'm sure this was not the intent of the above poster but the guy above you was criticising that comment.
So no, the links don't address their question - you're being unnecessarily rude and American. >

You are trying to explain that rationnally to someone crazy thinking the world is a US suburb.
They are americans they dont understand the concept of other cultures and never will. They will talk shut about slavery in Scotland, Roe vs Wade in China and all matter of crazy shit. >

I’m gonna just repost that in the United Kingdom, recorded rapes in 2020 netted a 1.6% summonses rate. 
Not conviction. Not sentencing. Summonses.
The idea that a would-be rapist would dress as a woman to somehow escape prosecution is fucking laughable in the face of that statistic. >


This is why there's a debate about making the process easier. It currently requires letters from two separate and unrelated medical professionals, while there's a 3-5 year waiting list just for starting transgender care at all.
links

Those links might cover it in a shorter span, but I'm also going to toss Philosophy Tube's most recent video into the ring as well. 
It's an hour and half video covering her experience trying to get the NHS to help her transition, the stone walling she got, and then the subsequent war she waged against the NHS bureaucracy trying to get answers. It can get pretty emotional near the mid to end parts, but its incredibly well put together. >

"controveresial" 
​
IT PASSED WITH A SUPERMAJORITY. >

You've misspelled 'controversial' AND misunderstood what it means. Bravo. >

So the argument is that violent men might abuse this to gain access to “single-sex” spaces?
Has that actually happened or is this an imagined threat? >

It happens every so often. 2 prison rapes jn Arizona got to be pretty high-profile. >

The vast majority of sexual abuse against female inmates is perpetrated by guards and if you want to get real holistic/systemic about it, something like 90% of incarcerated women have been victims of sexual abuse and/or domestic violence at some point before getting locked up.
“We have to keep biological male inmates out of the people cages we reserve for women” is just absurd when you put it into perspective. >

Just because something is bad does not mean you shouldn't make it worse. >

Or we could work on fixing all the bad stuff I was talking about. >

You can, in fact, do two things at once. If you want to pay prison guards more, go for it. >

Why would I want to give the concentration camp guards a raise? >

To stop every worthwhile guard from leaving and to keep them from being caught up in a web with the prisoners? When a guard can't afford rent and a prisoner offers 5k if they smuggle in drugs, they're going to take it. 
If you want things to be better, you need better people to do them. And you need to give them a reason. >

“Worthwhile” guards leave not because of low pay but because the nature of the job and the institutional culture, where you have a vast amount of power over people society considers despicable and disposable and little real oversight, attracts individuals with cruel and abusive personalities.
It has nothing to do with the pay scale. >

Every guard I've ever spoken to left over the low pay and the high risk. If a prisoner can stab you to desth and nobody sees any consequences, it's not worth $2/hr more than minimum wage. >

Pretty good news, pretty bad article.
I've been following this for a while, and so many of the "concerns" people had with the bill had absolutely nothing with anything it actually did. The subheading of this article illustrates this: "Opponents argue the changes fail to protect women's rights and single-sex spaces and could allow violent males to 'abuse' the system". Nowhere does it explain what, exactly, these concerns have to do with gender recognition certificates, because the answer is "nothing". >

Yeah, they tried to argue about trans athletes in the consultation stage.
Like, excuse me? How is that relevant to this bill? >

Men don't need a law to help them assault and rape women. Seems like they're not really worried about women's safety and more focused on preventing trans rights. >

Around 73% of sexual assaults on women are perpetrated by a male already known to them, usually a family member or friend. 
But let's not worry about that. More important things to catastrophise over. >

Well, she didn’t really. She was wearing a body stocking and a comedy pubic wig. I don’t really think it was helpful or necessary, but it’s also not super accurate to claim ‘she flashed her genitals’. >

If a trans person had done this the reaction would be very different. >

Only controversial among bigots. >

It's only controversial if you're an asshole. >

Can someone enlighten me why the change of sex on the birth certificate is important? From an outside perspective I would have thought:


I never look at my birth certificate so what do I care about the information on it


There are more important documents (passport, driving license) which are used far more regularly, why can’t we just change these


The birth certificate records biological sex at birth, allow people to transition genders by all means, but to erase records that could explain a persons life story (e.g. to doctors, journalists, descendants, historians) doesn’t make sense (to me). It’s not inaccurate to say a trans women was biologically male at birth.


I think this is fundamentally something that’s difficult to understand from the outside. To me this seems like Michael Jackson insisting he was white from birth, why is it not like that? >

You might not look at your own birth certificate but there's still times where you need to present it as a form of identification. If it contradicts current information it might cause issues- or worse yet, out a trans person to someone who might discriminate against them in a bureaucratic manner. 
Also, doctors don't check your fucking birth certificate for your medical history. >

I’m looking for a genuine explanation, no need to be aggressive. Also the mismatch between birth certificate and current ID is only a problem if there’s not another type of document you could have to explain why (e.g. gender recognition document).
It records sex at birth, which can’t change, only gender can change. And trying to assign a gender to a baby is considered wrong, so why would you want to make a document that recorded a real event unreliable?
Fine maybe doctors don’t use it but that in itself isn’t enough of a reason.
Edit: also to add, I appreciate that beurocratic discrimination is real, and should be combatted. But this seems to be an issue with the beurocrats not the records, train or fire them. Or maybe we should just not record sex? >

Sometimes I wonder what people think is happening in a bathroom. When I use public washroom, I go into the stall and lock the door. Once done I go wash my hands and out.
The way they described it make it looks like people getting fully naked in the washroom.
Just doesn’t compute in my head. >

This right here. One of my co-workers is trans and we've been in the bathroom at the same time on multiple occasions. Just like with anyone else, we mind our own business, maybe nod and make slight small talk at the sink. That's it. What do these paranoia-philes think is going on in these places? >

More human rights? How controversial! >

If both TERFs and social conservatives oppose a law, it is a good indication that it should be passed >

Good. Trans rights are human rights. >

"Scotland passes controversial legislation that makes peoples existence easier and more bearable."
Reads the same if you aren't a goof. >

i do think it’s interesting and kind of telling that whenever people are anti-trans, it’s always “man can’t become woman” and not “woman can’t become man” >

They've convinced themselves - through evangelical religion, or evangelical religion posing as 'radical feminism' - that being trans is a 'weird sex thing' and not something based in biology and inherent to people and that has nothing to do with having sex. And in their patriarchal system that denies women agency, they believe weird sex things are the sole domain of men, who prey on the dainty and innocent women and children. >

The only "controversial" is between the ears of TERFs and bog-standard homophobic conservatives. That's who's opposed to this bill, based on their statements. It looks like Scotland decided not to follow England's lead of making life as hard as possible for trans people, and instead streamlined a number of steps that were Catch-22's for trans people who wanted their gender legally recognized. >

Not really all that controversial for most people and the law has been in the works for 3 years. 
All it does is allow legal gender change, which means what term is put on your paperwork. And all this does is bring the age into line with the general age of majority in Scotland, which is 16. >

A minority of extremist transphobes dont make a controversy. Stop giving them an influence they never had. >

Before people start arguing, "sex" is chromosonal medical sex, "gender" is just how you feel. Life is too short and meaningless to worry about how others would like to feel, how they dress, what name they'd like to be called, and while we're at it; what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. >

Life is not too short to care about others. >

The gender somebody would like to be is none of anybody else's business. Caring for others is obviously a good thing to do, but imposing on others is not caring. >

I think I understand what you were trying to say. I think you meant ‘life is too short to treat others poorly.’  However what you said is “life is too short … to worry about how others would like to feel…”. 
I wholly disagree with what you wrote. What is life for if not caring for others?  
Do we agree? >

The intonation in my head gave it a clear meaning. You're right it reads a little ambiguously. "Life is too short to care enough about a particular point of view to impose it upon others against their wishes."
I suppose that's the synical way of saying "let people be whoever they want to be, it doesn't affect you" or "support others in being whoever they'd like to be, or feel they are" 
I think it's possible to care in general, without having a particular care for a particular individual. Indeed we are all rather limited in how many/few people we have the ability to genuinely and intimately care for. >

If it passed, then it’s not controversial. The only people that it’s controversial to are the ones who oppose it. >

I'm pro this bill but... that's not true at all. >

Plus, some of the amendments were tightly defeated? I think there was one about not transitioning when you are being jailed for sex crimes, which was defeated 61-62, no? There was controversy, but it seemed to revolve around the amendments about where the lines should be. >

Jesus what social benefit is there to stopping hormone care while in jail???