Real-life issues

Shona Craven makes several very important points. Misrepresentation by pro-reform activists of the arguments offered by those expressing concerns about the proposed GRA reforms is largely responsible for the toxicity of the debate. This toxicity has been quite purposefully contrived because it helps the pro-reform side dodge the kind of questions Shona refers to. Questions relating to the actual effect of the revised legislation in real-life situations.

Questions about the real-life effect of the reforms are smothered with worthy-sounding rhetoric about the intent. People with questions are discouraged from asking them by the fact that merely seeking clarification is enough to have them branded a hateful, uncaring bigot. The GRA reform debate has been beset by some truly despicable politicking almost entirely emanating from the woke clique which forms the imperial guard helping Nicola Sturgeon maintain her near-total control of the SNP.

Typically, we are assured that the reforms are about gender and not sex. But when we look at the effect of the reforms in real life, we see that this simply isn’t the case. Possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) allows the individual to alter records essential for the purposes of identification – such as their birth certificate and passport. Even National Records of Scotland (NRS) goes along with the deception. Its explanation of how a GRC can be used to alter a birth certificate refers only to gender. Sex is not mentioned at all. This despite the fact that there is no entry on a birth certificate for gender. Only for sex. It is the record of the person’s sex which is being altered. Not the record of their gender. Because there is no record of their gender on their birth certificate.

There could not be a record of the individual’s gender on a birth certificate not only because there is no such entry but because the neonate has no gender. Gender is, as we are constantly being told as if we didn’t already know, very largely socially determined. Babies have not had the opportunity to acquire a gender identity or to have a gender identity ‘imposed’ on them. They have yet to be socialised.

The claim that it’s about gender not sex is clearly a lie. The law as proposed will allow official records to be altered in order to confirm a lie about the sex of an individual. One cannot help but be reminded of Winston Smith’s job in Orwell’s 1984. The reforms proposed by the Scottish Government are explicitly intended to make it easier for almost anyone to alter official records. To believe that this facility will not be abused is to deny human nature. Which, I suppose, is easy once you’ve reached the stage of denying the binary and immutable nature of sex.

Another distortion of the debate is the way in which concerns about those who might abuse this facility to obtain official documents falsely testifying to their sex are minimised or dismissed. Shona mentions the revoltingly glib line about not having to show your birth certificate to gain entry to the ladies’ loo. Then there’s the one about it being men who attack women in toilets and not trans people. Ignoring the fact that the sex distinction has ceased to have any real meaning on account of the reforms. We are presented with statistical evidence that purports to show that the problem of men invading women-only spaces is infinitesimal. Mention that the problem the reforms purport to address is even more infinitesimal, however, and you are again labelled a heartless beast blah! blah! blah!

This minimisation and dismissal of the impact of the reforms on sex-based rights and safe spaces ignores yet another real-life effect of the legislation. In real life, it is not being attacked that blights lives but the fear of being attacked. Even if you could produce statistics which showed that only one woman in a million would be the victim of an attack perpetrated by a man who had falsified his sex with the assistance of the government, this doesn’t alter the reality of the fear felt by the other 999,999 women. It is fear which blights lives. It is fear which will effectively deny access to (formerly) women-only spaces for thousands of women. It is not somebody standing at the door checking birth certificates which will prevent them entering the ladies’ toilets. What stops them is the knowledge that this is no longer a safe space. It is no longer a space reserved for women. It is a space which can easily be accessed by men.

This fear too is dismissed by proponents of the reform. They typically respond to concerns about men going into women-only spaces by tritely pointing out that men can already go into these spaces. Ignoring the fact that what they propose will mean that those men will in future have access to those spaces legitimised by easily obtained official documents stating that they are female. Ignoring the fact that while they boast about making it easier for people to obtain these falsified documents and increasing the numbers who do so, they blithely disregard the fact that the real-life effect of this must inevitably be to increase the fear felt by women.

It’s not what the law says that matters. It’s what the law does. Proponents of the GRA reforms as proposed choose to turn a blind eye to what effect the reforms imply for women in real-life situations holding this to be of no consequence when set against the magnificent progressive purity of their intent.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPal

19 thoughts on “Real-life issues

  1. Peter, the reform bill is about the ease of obtaining a gender recognition cert. What you are going on about has been part of the actual gender recognition act since it was introduced in 2004. You need to make it clear that you are against the 2004 GRA.

    You can even bother to read what you are writing about, should you be interested….

    Click to access bill-as-introduced.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

    1. FFS! How often and in how many ways do I have to say that what I am referring to is the FACT ─ boasted about be proponents of the reform ─ that the process by which a GRC is obtained is being reduced to little more than a box-ticking formality and that the AIM of this reform ─ also boasted about by its proponents ─ is to significantly increase the number of people taking advantage of the possession of a GRC. It matters not the vaguest rumour of a fuck where the legislation originated. What matters ─ to me, at least ─ is the EFFECT of the legislation after the reforms have been implemented.

      What you are doing is what so many others do. You are trying to divert from the argument actually being advanced by introducing totally irrelevant material. The issue is that the effect of the legislation after reform will be that ─ regardless of what the position was previously ─ official documentation of a lie is to become commonplace. Sex is to be abolished as a defining category of human being. Sex is to be a matter of personal choice and state edict. It won’t matter what a person’s actual sex is. They can obtain, almost on request, official documents attesting to them being the other sex. And nobody will be permitted to point out that this is a lie.

      Why do I sense that this is a waste of time and effort? Every time I sate as clearly as I have here the issue that I am addressing, some fuckwit responds insisting that I am addressing a different issue entirely. Presumably because they lack the intellectual wherewithal to respond to the issue that I am actually talking about.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Peter I think if you look around some of the indy forums Mr E appears to be a new name cropping up here and there in the usual troll attempt to aggravate indy commenters or bloggers , I noted his or her appearances on Yours For Scotland with the usual unionist ploy of disruption and disagreement , his or her comment is designed to extract the response that you gave , TBQH it’s not worth the blood pressure increase , trolls will be trolls

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Are you against the 2004 GRA, the 2022 GRA reform bill, or both? Your incontinent rant is unenlightening.

        My deep sympathies to your family and friends, if you have any.


        1. You are entitled to call him an arsehole if you want, or a dick.

          By the normal rules of social media engagement you are NOT entitled to drag his family and friends into it – doing that that makes YOU the complete and utter plonker.


  2. Peter: your points are totally valid. You are right about the extension of legal rights to a group that is the opposite sex to that group which they are intended to afford those rights to, and protect. The proponents of this stuff, including Mr E know precisely what they are doing. Queer Theory demands that all prohibitive laws are chopped down and that human beings live as they please, as free as birds. It doesn’t advocate that some groups will naturally be at a huge disadvantage, especially physically – i.e. females and children. It is no coincidence either that the proponents of post-modern Queer Theory (although it has other things to offer) were almost all paedophiles and users of other human beings. I, too, believe that the extension will almost certainly lead to the chopping down of, firstly, all prohibitive sex laws, then laws per se. Greater freedom of individuals can so easily be o-opted by bad faith actors, as is happening now. Totalitarianism is the logical outcome of QT as heteronormativity is turned on its head.

    It is perfectly possible to introduce a hologram on all passports (there is already), on driving licences, on marriage certificates, and for all citizens, detailing birth sex, details of disability, of gender change, etc. without impinging on human rights or contravening data protection. If the hologram exists for all, the legal fiction can be supported and no one need be any the wiser. It would come into play only if a crime was committed, was in the process of leading up to being committed or for other legal, social reasons, etc. At the same time, the 2004 Equality Act should be amended to stipulate that ‘sex’ refers specifically to a man or woman, and, where single-sex spaces and rights are restricted to ‘sex’, no ‘trans’ person may breach that definition. These two things would allow ‘trans’ people to live their lives as they want, but not to impinge on the legal rights of others.

    I can imagine the screams of the human rights lobby, but I have noticed that the human rights lobby completely dismisses female human rights in the interests of extending human rights for men. Woman stand in the way. Many are blindsided by the ‘trans’ men (woman) and ‘trans’ children parts of this movement because its ultimate aim is not the extension of rights for all, as seems, but for men only, and, if children are ‘converted’ to the faith early, even if they are not ‘transitioned’ themselves, but merely indoctrinated, the effect will be the same as if all human rights were removed from all females, with grown women, previously indoctrinated children, also supporting their own oppression. It sounds paranoid until you research this stuff.

    I also see where you are coming from in relation to governments, and I agree that we should never trust governments to act in our best interests without close scrutiny of their workings. Certainly, the Scottish government are up to their armpits in this stuff, but every government in every country in the West is also captured. Why? Because it is an extension of unfettered capitalism, neoliberalism, which sees new opportunities in medical intervention, in technological intervention, in pharmaceutical intervention, in prosthetics intervention, etc., etc. Megabucks to be made, especially if privatisation sets in properly.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Lorna I have always admired and respected your empathy and compassion when responding to items or policies that have possible adverse connotations for others , BUT as you have commented numerous times before on this and other blogs this is not what this policy is about , THIS is about perverts , deviants and sex fetishists getting their own way , this isn’t about people suffering with mental disorders this is about eradicating civic rules and regulations , THIS is only the start, when they succeed in removing the rules and regulations designed and agreed by sane people to protect and RESPECT the differences in the SEXES they will then use that momentum to concentrate on removing the protections from our most vulnerable, OUR CHILDREN, they are sick perverted predators , this mealy mouthed attempt to RENAME PAEDOS as MAPS (Minor Attracted People) is waiting on the sidelines, THAT will be the next protection to attack, the ever caring labour party already had ministers previously exposed as favourable to that policy

      I am not as empathetic or compassionate as you I will NOT consent to this abomination being inflicted on the majority of the population against their will just to accommodate a minuscule portion of the population who have a mental disorder , BTW I know you do not support this legislation in any way , I know that you are just being kind and rational , but MY kindness has disappeared in the face of this aberration

      Liked by 2 people

      1. twathater: I think you completely misunderstand where I am coming from. My empathy and compassion are severely restricted, believe me, and like you, I will not consent to this either. In common with many, many others, I have been fighting this stuff forever, it seems. Initially, I was digging out the facts surrounding the sudden influx of ‘wokerati’ into the SNP between September, 2014 and mid 2015, when so many appeared to come on the coattails of genuinely independence-supporting former Labour voters. I started to notice that certain people seemed to have meteoric rises, and I also noted that the ‘trans’ issue was coming to the fore in the party.

        After that, I deduced that the SNP had been infiltrated by elements not particularly well-disposed to independence itself, the core policy, but, rather, a devolutionist foot-dragging approach, and, at the same time, very young people, and those holding particular views, seemed to be in the ascendancy. It was a recipe for disaster, I thought – and said so.

        I also understand that there are people – a tiny minority very much smaller than the ‘trans’ community – who were genuinely body/gender dysphoric/dysmorphic – and that there appeared to be no cure in psychiatry, psychology or anywhere else for these people. The only relief they seemed to get was from actual surgery and hormone treatment, and I also discovered that, though these men did use female bathroom facilities, still breaching female boundaries, they tended to avoid every other female service and facility. That was before the whole issue bloomed into a free-for-all, and every Tom, Dick and Harry pitched in, as well as girls and children, the latter two groups almost certainly, in the main, necessary to feed the delusion of male to female self-identified ‘trans’ women, which is why they are tolerated (the former, females) and literally lauded (the latter, children).

        I do not believe for one second that anyone can change sex; I believe absolutely that the ‘trans’ lobby is a monster that needs to be defeated; and I have researched extensively the autogynephilic/fetishistic nature of the majority of this phenomenon. I think it has always been with us but was, largely, kept behind closed doors until very recently, and it has been used as the vanguard for psychopathic and narcissistic money men who aim to make trillions from the destruction of our societal mores, from the overthrow of heteronormativity and the renewed push for privatisation of, basically, everything. Alongside these monsters are the hard left (who always usher in the right, and who squeal about certain rights almost non-stop) and the real sexual deviants.

        My suggestions are not meant as a compromise: they are intended to stymie the bad faith players. Offer ‘trans’ people third spaces and listen to them squeal; offer them ‘legal’ recognition, but only under very strict conditions, and listen to them squeal; offer them other medical services, especially for children, such as counselling and psychiatric care, and listen to them squeal. By their actions shall we know them. They don’t want any of that: they want everything that women have – and more; they want to usher in a dystopian future for all of us; and they absolutely want to have complete freedom to do as they please, especially in the sexual and economic spheres. Now, perhaps you understand what I am saying. I won’t be holding my breath. Neither should you. The SNP is going to try and push this through, with the help of every other mainstream party at Holyrood, and the Greens. They have to be stopped.

        Liked by 5 people

        1. Lorna forgive me for making you type all that I can assure you I have not misunderstood what you wrote or are feeling , I have read and digested your comments made all across the indy blogs and I have noticed and commented in the past that your patience had been stretched to breaking and your anger had risen and had become palpable , I have said repeatedly that I fully agree with your anger I was pointing out that you appear to be a very caring person whose patience has been exhausted , I was pointing out that I have never had that patience or that level of empathy or sympathy

          TBQH I am sick to the back teeth that people’s empathy and compassion is taken as a sign of weakness with these manipulators like sturgeon and her tartan taliban troops using that compassion to do things that otherwise rational people would rebel against

          I am sitting here writing this while the Biased Bastard Corporation on tv is telling us that we need more immigration and telling us the makeup of Scotland is more diverse and quoting population figures that the SG will not publish , the majority of people being interviewed, there is not a Scottish accent amongst them , Scots are destined to become extinct and the worrying thing is that we are being complicit in our own demise


    2. Lorna, have you actually read the GRA reform bill? Your trannies raping you in the changing room fixation has been going on since 2004.


      1. Mr E: yes, I have read it. I read the 2004 GRA. I have read the Denton’s Document. I have read extensively on the subject of autogynephilia and ‘trans’. Your rather pointed little remark about rape does you no credit. Rape is at the apex of a whole gamut of fetishistic behaviours. Didn’t you realise that cross-dressing for sexual thrills is fetishistic behaviour? I know, a number of people have told me that they are friendly with ‘trans’ women who would never dream of harming women and children. I’m sure many wouldn’t, but if only one does because that person has been encouraged to breach female boundaries by this reform, really extension to pre existing rights, then it is one too many.

        My real concern lies with children and young people and the ways in which they are being ‘educated’ and brainwashed to accept this absolute piffle. Think about it: if you are in the wrong body, then someone else is missing one, or yours is floating around somewhere in space waiting for your brain to connect with it. That you fail to see that ‘trans’ rights and female rights are totally in opposition is sad, but also dangerous. When you allow someone of the opposite sex to “become a woman” in law, then that is what they become. Goodbye female single-sex spaces, rights, sports, jobs, services, et al.

        No one has the slightest idea – least of all the SG – how many GRCs will be sought if this passes, how many cross-dressing men will breach women’s spaces, etc. Far, far too many unanswered questions. If you bothered to do some research, you would discover many sex offenders who are ‘trans’ identified – and some before their crime, not after, so don’t try to be smart. Between 100 and 200 females die each year at the hands of violent men. Not one ‘trans’ woman has for a number of years, and ‘she’ didn’t die at the hands of a woman.

        If ‘trans’ people want safety, dignity and privacy, then campaign for third spaces. Women had to, and bloody hard. “Oh, no”, I hear them screech, “we’re real women”. No, they are blokes with a fetish, most of them – not all, granted, but the majority. Woman-face is every bit as insulting to females as black-face is to black people. Neither of us got to choose, as ‘trans’ get to choose. No white person and no man can ever know what it is to be a black person or a woman, and to suggest that anyone can live like either is so utterly off the wall and demeaning as to be beyond redemption.

        Liked by 4 people

  3. LINK:
    “Shona Craven: Drama has obscured the detail in Gender Recognition Bill debate”

    Shona Craven brings some clarity to some of the basic issues not even being discussed.

    If only Government Minister Shona Robison would directly address the issues.

    In that alternative reality that used to notionally include democratic accountability for elected members, that would be party of her job.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. aLurker: there have been so many red flags: the Denton’s Document, the proposed extensions (not reforms) to the 2004 GRA, the blatant breaching of female boundaries (some website are awash with men photographing themselves in female loos and changing rooms, usually whilst masturbating, with websites that show photos and films taken in women’s changing rooms without their knowledge) should at least form some part of the evidence. None of this stuff on-line has been used as evidence for caution. Not the threats of death and rape either.

      The equally blatant misrepresentation of the law, especially the protections of the 2010 Equality Act is never challenged by government either – which it would be if they were interested in fairness and the safety, dignity and privacy of females. They are determined to push this stuff through on the pretext of ‘being kind’ and helping ‘trans’ people to access a simpler process for gaining a GRC. Their protestations are beginning to sound very hollow.

      Many people are asking questions in the public domain: Shona Craven is one, Susan Dalgety another, Peter here yet another, caltonjock, grumpyscottishman, Barrhead Boy, Iain Lawson and many others, including women’s organisation such as ‘For Women Scotland’. The sheer illogicality and, yes, insanity, of this movement can be spotlighted. What they are trying to do women, girls, lesbians, gay men and children is unconscionable, and what they have done to our independence movement is unforgivable.

      Liked by 5 people

  4. The first problem with this whole issue is that it should have been split into two.

    Two stages, the first Bill to tackle relatively non-controversial issues, where the apparent contradictions between the 2004 GRA and the 2010 Equalities were resolved and clarified.

    The second, the controversial part about which by far the most arguments are taking place. Because at least then there would be no confusion about whether complaints were about the 2004 GRA or the 2022 one – it would have been only about the current one in reference to the 2019 first stage Act which would have gone quicker with less need for so-called consulations.

    Legislation through Holyrood is often ham-fisted and tries to do far far too much. Keep it simple stupid should be the motto of both Holyrood and the SNP.

    Oh, and absolutely neither of these should have been subject to whips which should become a Westminster anachronism. People should vote by conscience.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Surely I can’t be the only one that realises the correlation between this lunacy and the last time a large proportion of the Scottish population went ‘batshit crazy’.
    I refer to the Billy Graham Crusades of the late 50s/early 60s.
    Then as now a sizeable percentage of the population were brainwashed into unconditional acceptance. Then as now anyone who dared to question the dogma was branded a fascist or a devil.
    Then as now people, including those from the higher echelons of society who came out against the cult were victimised and in some cases criminalised.
    What I can’t discover is how the country returned to sanity – although I believe it was due to Graham going one step too far.
    I feel it in my gut that Sturgeon has just done the same thing.

    Liked by 6 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.