Moral panic, in the sense @Louise is using it, has a highly specific meaning and if you read the definitions you can see how very precisely it fits the current circumstances.
Also the constant debate about definitions (in general not here specifically) is very reminiscent of debates about who 'really' counts as white. It's hard not to see the rejection of trans women as being really women as being as ridiculous as not seeing Irish or Italian people as 'really' white.
The moral panic aspect is amplified by this being such a recently-created issue. Trans women have used women's spaces and played women's sports for decades with no issues. Look at coverage of trans issues from the 90s and before, and it seems astonishingly positive compared to now even though transition was a lot more difficult and trans people had fewer legal rights. Hayley Cropper in Coronation Street (a trans woman character in a popular UK show) arguably couldn't happen in the same way now - I know there is a trans woman character in Hollyoaks but not a popular and well-loved character in the same way. There was tabloid salaciousness when Hayley was introduced but the public were mostly supportive.
Also thinking about the comments about medical misogyny re 'hysterical' (not accusing anyone in the thread of misogyny but just talking about the concept generally), as an institutional feature medical misogyny is very closely related to medical transphobia. Just because something is considered to be acceptable clinical practice or language doesn't mean it can't also be misogynistic, transphobic etc - medical practice doesn't happen in a vacuum but reflects the society in which it happens.
It's frustrating seeing TERFs in particular use medical misogyny as a weapon against improving trans healthcare when many cis women would also benefit from more inclusive healthcare. Cis women with vaginismus and trans men on testosterone share many of the same barriers to smear tests and vaginal ultrasounds for instance. Easier access to HRT (in the general sense of HRT*) and endocrinology for trans people can also help improve access to HRT for menopausal people and those with other gendered hormone issues like endometriosis (which is functionally an estrogen problem rather than a uterine problem).
*Cross-pond difference - in the UK, HRT generally only refers to that used for treating menopause symptoms, despite the fact that trans people use identical HRT for transition reasons (and actually that includes trans men too, who often use topical estrogen cream due to testosterone side effects). In the US, HRT generally refers to all types of HRT so it's common for trans people there to call their hormone treatment HRT...because it is, and the same goes for cis men with low testosterone. This is how I'm using HRT as a term here.
In relation to hysteria, of course Freud began to use it about men, and this became standard in psychoanalysis. However, its still true that it carries misogynist connotations..
Has anyone else here read this first-person account of an encounter in a women's public restroom? The link is below: I'm giving it a content warning as the article does contain some crude language which may make it NSFW, so I have hidden it under a spoiler-tag.
For anyone who might not want to click and read the whole thing the short version is: two young women, one cis and one trans, were in a pub ladies' room where the hand dryer didn't work. The trans woman claims she said "I'll wipe my hands on my jeans," while the cis woman claims she heard her say "I'll wipe my hands on my penis."
I saw the story unfold on Twitter, starting with the original post by Ruby Sampson, the young cis woman who felt threatened by a very crude comment that a trans woman allegedly said to her in a public bathroom. My immediate reaction was that, while it certainly would be a shocking comment to hear, it seemed like a very far-fetched thing for anyone to say, and I wondered if there was more to the story. Ruby, who is a Tory councillor, went to the media with her story and used it as a springboard to talk about the dangers of trans women in spaces she believes should be for cis women only.
The follow-up to this also came in the form of a Twitter thread, later written up into the article I linked above by Sophie McAllister, who believes she may have been the trans woman Ruby met. Her side of the story is quite different, and I must admit, sounds much more plausible to me.
Sophie has been very cautious to say she can't be SURE it's the same encounter, but her story certainly seems more in line with how most normal people actually behave. It's hard not to feel that Ruby may have been interpreting what she (mis)heard based on her own pre-conceptions about trans women. It's a case of "she said/she said," of course, but if both women are being truthful and it is the same encounter, it comes across to me as a tale of how fear and ignorance lead to bigotry.
(It also seems odd to me that Ruby is 22 years old and has apparently, from the tone of her account, has never met or spoken with a trans woman before in her life. Very unusual based on the 22-year-olds I know, but I suppose it's the circles you move in -- the 22 year olds I know also aren't Tories, or city/town councillors).
As a cis woman, I certainly don't like to feel threatened in public spaces, but I also feel that in that sort of space, a trans woman is at far greater risk than I am.
And look how easily it was blown into newspaper moral panic fodder of the sort that really endangers people. And if you hadn't been following news sources from actual trans people who are journalists you'd have been very unlikely to find that out.
There are almost no UK newspapers or media organisations which reliably behave ethically where trans people are concerned and it requires a conscious effort to check and keep informed which very few people will make or know they should make to avoid getting sucked into this kind of misreporting. This non-incident hit the Daily Mail and was thus pushed out to a readership of millions - how many people will have seen Sophie's story?
British tabloids have done front pages with shocking stories attacking trans people which turned out to be 100% wrong and later were admitted to be fake - but not before a lot of damage was done and the stories widely believed and widely circulated. I don't think people realise quite how flimsy and mendacious a lot of this reporting can be and how toothless our press watchdog is.
As I've mentioned before these kind of stories have previously been used by racists and anti-gay campaigners and are not a new tactic. Our press is shot through with this kind of attack on vulnerable groups and we don't have any great awareness of it or any great model for tackling it.
British tabloids have done front pages with shocking stories attacking trans people which turned out to be 100% wrong and later were admitted to be fake - but not before a lot of damage was done and the stories widely believed and widely circulated. I don't think people realise quite how flimsy and mendacious a lot of this reporting can be and how toothless our press watchdog is.
And, usually after several days of the fiction being splashed across front pages, the apology and admission that it was all fake sit on a couple of cm of column space on page 17.
Not being in the UK to get the British press firsthand and having everything filtered through Twitter, I'm wondering if there's been any follow-up coverage from the initial Daily Mail story, anything giving the additional context of Sophie's side of the incident? Or has Ruby's version simply been repeated unchallenged?
While transphobia is rampant everywhere, I do think the UK press seems to be worse for uncritically repeating this kind of "moral panic" story. I can't imagine a local paper here picking up a story like Ruby's and running with it in the same way.
And it carries on even after things have been proven to not be true - in the reporting of the transphobic maths teacher incident, The Guardian has alluded to Maya Forstater winning her court case against her former employer when she didn't - her right to hold gender-critical beliefs was never in question, she was fired for bullying a trans woman at her workplace including deliberate and persistent misgendering, which the judge upheld as being an unreasonable expression of those beliefs that she could legally and fairly be fired for. You could get fired for harassing a colleague over things that are true, it doesn't make it not a problem in a workplace.
Also re the incident Trudy posted, I'm not aware of penises being particularly absorbent so it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. Plenty of trans women also don't have penises anyway so it's based on a big assumption.
It seems Yousaf is going to press ahead with the legal challenge which, if you take his campaign statements at face value, means he thinks there is a reasonable chance of winning.
Arethosemyfeet: It seems Yousaf is going to press ahead with the legal challenge which, if you take his campaign statements at face value, means he thinks there is a reasonable chance of winning.
I tend to look at Yousaf's decision in terms of party management rather than the substance of the bill itself. As the continuity candidate he was well-placed to benefit from the Bute House arrangement with the Greens, but the credibility and benefits of that agreement have been severely compromised by subsequent events, so that he is faced with a semi-organised centre-right opposition of around 15 SNP MSPs, who represent the preferences of around half the party membership but are excluded from the cabinet. In the dramatically changed circumstances, therefore, Yousaf's position of strength is now dangerously exposed on his SNP centre-right flank in circumstances where party unity is now more critical than the understanding with the Greens.
Towards the end of the leadership campaign Yousaf had edged towards the position that his decision would be based on legal advice, which in political-talk indicated he intended to allow the issue of GRR to wither on the vine, arguing a legal challenge had little prospect of success. Given that he now has the problem of organised disunity in his own party the re-consolidation of the Holyrood contingent is more important than the alliance with the Greens. To achieve that, however, would require a ministerial reshuffle that recognised the strength of his opponents in the SNP, acquiescence to the blocking of the GRR legislation, and a consequent break with the Greens. So to do, however, would destroy the foundations on which Yousaf's Bute House government rests. The decision to press ahead with the appeal, therefore, reflects a desperate attempt to restore SNP unity by an appeal to a constitutional principle rather than the substance of the GRR bill/act, itself. One doubts the gambit will wash with his Nationalist critics. My guess is that the Yousaf administration and its works, rather declarations, are proverbial dead parrots.
Or alternatively it's what he said he would do and he's done it. Saying he wouldn't go ahead if told by the Lord Advocate there was 'no chance' was spun by some to indicate a climb down instead of an unlikely scenario he didn't think would happen and which hasn't happened.
quetzalcoatl: Yes, I thought he'd be in big trouble if he gave in. Not so much about gender, as Westminster ruling the roost.
In one respect you are right in that the Greens might have decided to quit the administration had Yousaf refused to pursue the matter. On the other hand, given the unpopularity of the gender legislation with the electorate it's not a good issue on which to mount a constitutional campaign against Westminster, let alone unify a fractured SNP. Yousaf's decision reflects his weakness, not his strength, and may well hasten the demise of his administration. From an SNP perspective, given the stuff that's hurtling down the line towards it, and the existential threat it faces, party unity and the dropping of policies unwelcomed by most of its own electorate, especially when they are dead in the water, would seem to take precedence over Quixotic gestures. Scottish politics has reached the point where the Bute House understanding has passed its sell-by date, so that its major protagonists, Nationalist and Green, will be increasingly exposed to internal party voices demanding a revival of party independence from its straightjacket. The rejection of Forbes, which seemed sensible for the SNP at the time, now looks like a major error of judgement.
@Kwesi you keep saying that the legislation is unpopular with the electorate, when in actual fact the *actual* changes are generally approved of - the issue is that the transphobic reporting by the press, Westminster, transphobes within Holyrood etc have totally distorted what the changes would actually be, ie very small administrative changes. The problem is that the electorate has purposely been mislead as to what trans people endure in the current system and what the reforms would change.
This is why you have Westminster planning to give women's shelters etc rights that they already have and would also still have under the reforms, because several groups including women's shelters and churches etc have always been able to disregard a GRC. Women's shelters just have almost universally not wanted to do so. Also for eg the legislation wouldn't change anything about toilet provision because toilet usage has never been legally enforced according to sex or gender, or even disability. It has always been legal for trans people to use the toilet of their choosing.
Pomona: Kwesi, you keep saying that the legislation is unpopular with the electorate, when in actual fact the *actual* changes are generally approved of - the issue is that the transphobic reporting by the press.
With respect, Pomona, I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. The two references I quote below are pretty representative of the reports I've seen. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary, which I await with interest.
According to an IPSOS poll published in Holyrood 7th February 2023, 50 per cent of the Scottish electorate supported the Westminster block on GRR and 33 per cent were opposed. Amongst SNP voters, 52 percent disapproved of the block, while 31 per cent approved.
On 14th February 2023, Lord Ashcroft reported similar findings: "On the issue behind Sturgeon’s latest confrontation with Westminster – the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill – I found only just over one in five Scots (22%) saying they supported the Bill and that London was wrong to block it. Nearly twice as many (43%) said they opposed the Bill and the UK government was right to block it. Overall, more than half (54%) said they opposed the reforms, with 29% in favour. Half said the UK government was right or within its rights to stop the legislation, with 33% saying it was wrong to do so."
@Kwesi what I said was that people support the plans when they are made aware of the actual changes and not what they think the changes will be. To clarify - I mean that people have been misled as to the actual changes by a transphobic press, when the GRR is in fact some very minor administrative changes.
However even if it was unpopular, surely you can grasp that human rights legislation is both necessary and sometimes unpopular. The death penalty is very popular with much of the public, that doesn't mean it should be brought back. Yet again you treat transphobia as a reasonable alternative view rather than something that gets trans people murdered.
Pomona: However even if it was unpopular, surely you can grasp that human rights legislation is both necessary and sometimes unpopular. The death penalty is very popular with much of the public, that doesn't mean it should be brought back. Yet again you treat transphobia as a reasonable alternative view rather than something that gets trans people murdered.
All sorts of things, Pomona, are necessary and unpopular and deserving of rectification. Alas we live in a world in which according to my values many bad things take place and should be stopped but are likely to persist. All I'm doing here is pointing out why the GRR bill/act is dead in the water, and has nothing to do with what I think or don't thing about its merits or demerits. Nowhere do I treat "transphobia as a reasonable alternative view", nor, Louise, attempt to turn this discussion into a "Forbes fan fiction thread". I note that neither of you attempt to refute my arguments or conclusions. That the message isn't popular doesn't necessarily reflect on a supposed malign intent of the bearer.
I think it also instructive to report that the Ashcroft survey of February 2023 reported that "By 50% to 28%, Scottish voters said they would rather have a law made in Westminster that they agreed with than a law made in Scotland that they disagreed with. A quarter of those who voted SNP in 2019, and nearly 3 in 10 of those who voted Yes in the 2014 referendum, said they would prefer a London law that they agreed with".
If that is the case then Yousaf could be flogging a dead horse by challenging the blocking of GRR on constitutional grounds and will only serve to remind the voters how they dislike the legislation and support Westminster intervention.
The Ashcroft survey found that only 3 per cent rated GRR as the most important issue to them. It is often the case that on matters of low salience opinions tend to be more malleable that those of central importance to the respondent. Thus, while the data are not favourable to Scottish GRR advocates, campaigners might be able to change opinions on the issue.
Because it really feels like a waste of time sometimes - Angus Robertson, if that's who you were suggesting as a 'unity candidate' with the right (in Purg, but the answer belongs here) - is more vehemently pro trans rights than Humza Yousaf and has been very public and forthright about that. A unity candidate who's more opposed to the people he's meant to conciliate than the person already in power - well that's an interesting concept...
In a number of ways we've been here before done that and got the T-shirt. Section 2A repeal in 2000 was massively unpopular at the time. The Scottish School boards association poll showed only 90 out of 777 boards favoured it. At the time a plurality - 48% of Scots thought same sex relationships were always or mostly wrong, only 37% of people thought they were rarely or not wrong at all. There was a huge media driven moral panic which saw a deluge of anti-gay sentiment. The government lost a key by-election, suffered in the polls and was hit with a millionaire funded hate-campaign which involved bill-boards and a tabloid blitz against Donald Dewar and Wendy Alexander.
The Labour Scottish executive held firm. Section 2A was repealed and support for homophobes has tumbled ever since. It's now at least 69% /18% in favour of same sex relationships being not wrong at all or rarely wrong.
Attacking LGBT minorities can earn short term bumps but generally ages badly in the long run. People do not look back on 2A and say Brian Souter and Cardinal Winning were right and Donald Dewar and Wendy Alexander were wrong. Labour won the next Scottish Parliament election in 2003. The anti-gay bump was that shortlived.
It's other things that will really do the damage when it comes to an election if they're not sorted.
In general, progressive legislation in Holyrood usually passes cross-party (as GRR did very handsomely). Labour's battle ground seats are central belt and the voters and the people they are in pursuit of are not Kate Forbes voters and the Lib Dems are not socially conservative at all (they voted 100% for GRR), so in practice there's a limit to what a potential 15 conservative-leaning Nat MSPs can do when there's only 31 Unionist Tories for them to vote for cuts and social conservativism with.
Louise: It's other things that will really do the damage when it comes to an election if they're not sorted.
I agree with this, pointing out, as I did, Ashcroft's observation that the issue of GRR is of low salience with the overwhelming majority of Scottish voters; and that being so it was possible that opinion could change if exposed to the issue by advocates like yourself. Until the Supreme Court issues its ruling in what appears to be eighteen months time or there is a change of government at the next UK election, the legislation is paused, which provides. an opportunity for the bill's campaigners.
The reason why I suggested Robertson as a unity leader was less his position on GRR than his membership of the present administration and the strength of his curriculum vitae, which could command approval across the factions. Thus, while he is sufficiently progressive to serve under Yousaf, he is likely to be sufficiently detached from the former inner circle to present himself as the credible reformer the SNP so badly needs. From what you say he would appear more than satisfactory from a GRR perspective. Perhaps you have a more suitable alternative in mind. So be it. I don't have a dog in this fight. What seems clear to me, however, is that Yousaf's close association with the former regime, which his government reflects, leaves the him and the causes he espoused dangerously exposed to a right-wing coup within his party. GRR might be better served with a new standard-bearer.
A right wing coup would not get the support it would need from MSPs or the membership. Forbes got a lot of support in spite of being right wing, not because of it. Being a Gaelic speaker from the Highlands (ok, Dingwall, but still technically the Highlands) and hence perceived as having some knowledge of life outside the central belt was a big factor. I don't think it's overstating to say that most SNP members recognise that Forbes is likely more capable than Yousaf, but her reactionary views made her less palatable. I think you're overplaying the risk of immediate revolt. Further developments regarding the former leadership may change that, but it's hardly as if Forbes was less involved as Finance Secretary than Yousaf at health.
. Arethosemyfeet: I think you're overplaying the risk of immediate revolt. Further developments regarding the former leadership may change that, but it's hardly as if Forbes was less involved as Finance Secretary than Yousaf at Health.
Fair comment. You could be right, though the crisis seems remarkably deep. If matters go to court, then win or lose a lot of dirty washing in public beckons.
The aspect which intrigues me is what the Greens think about it all. Perhaps Alan Cresswell could enlighten us.
. Arethosemyfeet: I think you're overplaying the risk of immediate revolt. Further developments regarding the former leadership may change that, but it's hardly as if Forbes was less involved as Finance Secretary than Yousaf at Health.
Fair comment. You could be right, though the crisis seems remarkably deep. If matters go to court, then win or lose a lot of dirty washing in public beckons.
The aspect which intrigues me is what the Greens think about it all. Perhaps Alan Cresswell could enlighten us.
Well, the comments I've seen from watermelons have been along the lines of "bourgeois parties're gonna bourgeois".
Originally posted by Kwesi: Ashcroft's observation that the issue of GRR is of low salience with the overwhelming majority of Scottish voters
Not Ashcroft, but I recently completed a YouGov poll, and wished that I'd screenshotted the questions as I did it. One of the questions was to pick the five issues most important to you out of a list of about 15-20. I think I put the N.H.S. top of my list, and I didn't include GRR in my top five.
I wondered if the result might be spun, not as "Scottish voters very concerned about the NHS / education / the economy / climate change / immigration etc", but as "Scottish voters not concerned about GRR."
I felt as I was doing the survey that the survey results could be "spun." I'm used to YouGov surveys which require you to pick three out of five, for example, but this one had an unusually long list of options.
North East Quine , thanks for your post. Perhaps I might make a few comments.
I don't think your remarks challenge the conclusion that GRR is anything other than a matter of low salience. Indeed, I suspect that had it not been on the list its absence might not have crossed your mind.
You do, however, raise a problem, namely that the survey structures your answer by listing issue and presenting them in a particular order. I wonder, for example, where GRR was ranked on the list presented to you and whether the listing you saw was in the same order for all respondents. The best surveys are those which are not self-administered, and in this case would have begun with an unprompted questions something like: "What problem do you think is the most important problem facing the Scottish Government". Any others". Then "Thinking of your own situation what problem would you like the government to address?" . Any others? Only then would it be appropriate to present the respondent with specific lists or issues. The purpose, of course, would be to try and establish where, say, GRR, figures on the respondents concerns and priorities.*
Regarding GRR I would want to know how knowledgeable an individual was about the issues involved and the contents of the legislation, as well as asking some basic questions as to what they understood by "transgender", "cisgender", "transphobia", and other terms commonly used in the debate. I might then ask questions relating to "women's space", "who should go to female prisons?" and so on. Then "Has the Scottish government done anything about transgender issues?" If "Yes" "What has it done about it?" My guess is that the results would reveal a huge amount of "Don't Knows".
On this issue I frequently ask friends and acquaintances what cisgender means? In virtually every case I've had to give them the answer, not being habitués of Epiphanies.
My guess is that the data would suggest that GRR is a matter of minuscule salience characterised monumental ignorance and indifference, and that clearly stated attitudes are only in response to structured questions present "for" or "against" answers. That being the case not too much certainty can be placed on the outcome, and there is a strong possibility that attitudes are open to change either way.
* A problem with structured and prompted questions is that they can convey levels of interest in a topic that do not exist. Open-ended questions, on the other hand, are much better at minimising the influence of the enthusiastic survey compiler. Where a questionnaire is administered the person asking the questions is advised not to show too much interest in the answers, and even to show indifference where the respondent is struggling.
@Kwesi my point was that ypu need to remember that you're in Epiphanies not Purg, and not lose sight of the trans people suffering while becoming a political football. It's upsetting to see you continue to play the role of Le Enlightened Centrist when you're defending Forbes using a moral panic against vulnerable people.
. I might then ask questions relating to "women's space", "who should go to female prisons?" and so on.
If someone asked this in the context of GRR which has nothing whatsoever to do with that I'd consider that incredibly unethical. It relates to a process for changing markers on certificates used in neither of these cases.
Also what's salient in terms of elections and what's a morally bankrupt and wicked attack on a marginalised group are two different things. I find your scenarios improbable but they also visualise a Scotland in which people who have stoked a vicious and dangerous scapegoating moral panic get rewarded with cabinet posts and there's quite a thin line between outlining stuff like that and seeming to be salivating about it in front of the very people whose lives would be most affected and most at stake if that came to pass.
North East Quine Indeed, I suspect that had it not been on the list its absence might not have crossed your mind.
You do, however, raise a problem, namely that the survey structures your answer by listing issue and presenting them in a particular order. I wonder, for example, where GRR was ranked on the list presented to you and whether the listing you saw was in the same order for all respondents.
Had it not been there, I know I would have noticed its absence, because, having scanned down the list I thought "That's odd! no mention of GRR!" On second reading of the list I spotted it, about 2/3 down, but the form of words was something about identity, I think.
I have no idea whether every respondent gets the list in the same order. I wish I had screen-shotted it - I felt at the time the question was oddly designed, or perhaps designed to be odd.
I understand that Epiphanies is a board particularly adapted for those who have certain lived experiences to explore.
Politics are,however, for all of the population,not just for those with certain lived experiences. While we can all believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong,a politician should be ready to represent all of the electorate and to listen to them.
The politician is entitled to have his or her or their own strong or not so strong beliefs on certain matters,but the politician has to try to remember that he or she or they have to answer to the electorate as a whole who may not always be of the same mind.
Platitudinous utterances are all very well till the actual politicians who exist come for the platitude utterer. Then for some reason they tend to want their human rights to be secured and defended rather than to hear platitudes about how 'politicians... have to answer to the electorate as a whole' from people standing idly by and approving while they are persecuted.
@Forthview , everyone else, I presume you are not implying that human rights should not be protected or denying that trans rights are human rights.
But just in case, let us be very clear that in Epiphanies we will be agreed that trans folk have rights and those rights should be protected. Most things are up for debate, but some things are not.
@Kwesi I mean in general you've been very quick to say how impressive you find Forbes without any mention of why others find her so dangerous.
I can totally get behind the Highlands & Islands supporting local voices, and I appreciate that culturally those areas do have ties to particular forms of conservative Christianity. But as much as Forbes says she would respect everyone else's right to live as they wish, clearly she was only too happy to jump into bed with TERFs and now we have Westminster proposing to effectively eradicate GRCs entirely (because if you cannot have a legal gender change that publicly overrides your birth gender that makes a GRC redundant). Everyone says they're in favour of trans people being able to freely live their lives until they don't.
@Kwesi you've said it repeatedly in Scottish politics threads generally, I can't find the comments right now but it's definitely something you've commented.
But regardless, it's beside the points that Louise and Gwai made which you haven't responded to at all.
Gwai, I am glad that you presume that I am not in any way attempting to imply that human rights should not be protected,nor am I in any way denying that trans rights should be protected.,for indeed that is the case.
However for those who talk about rights,they should think about the rights of others and their point of view which in a democracy they are surely entitled to have.
Politicians,if they wish to have the power entrusted to them by the people they represent,
have to be aware of the views of the whole electorate.
The problem comes when things like human rights are unpopular with the electorate for various reasons. That's not a reason to capitulate to those whose point of view is hostile to other people's existence. Nearly half of the UK public think golliwogs aren't racist, because apparently nearly half the UK public are racist idiots.
Trans people's rights don't negatively affect the rights of others.
And now Sunak is doubling down on the transphobia, because for some reason all the transphobes (and Starmer is included in this) care about is penises, apparently failing to consider that plenty of trans women no longer have penises anyway.
If it is generally agreed that gender self-definition is to be regarded as a right in the sense of being a natural right derived from being human rather than deriving from positive law, then does not the reduction of the opportunity to exercise that natural right from 18 to 16 continue to abridge that right egregiously. ISTM that in principle the Holyrood legislators are hardly more virtuous than their anathematised transphobic critics.
And now Sunak is doubling down on the transphobia, because for some reason all the transphobes (and Starmer is included in this) care about is penises, apparently failing to consider that plenty of trans women no longer have penises anyway.
Perhaps we need to invent an entirely new categorisation, namely “people with penises” and “people without penises”, and assign things like dressing rooms and toilets accordingly.
Basically it would be regularising the position that gender is entirely separate from biological sex, thus at a stroke making gender identification (or reidentification) much easier while also allowing those who want (for whatever reason) to know whether other people in the same space as them have penises or not to do so.
KarlLB Nothing in the law in question stops an under-16 from identifying as transgender. Many such already do, both sides of the border.
It is about the requirements for a GRC, not about the right to identify ones gender.
Comments
Content Warning
The moral panic aspect is amplified by this being such a recently-created issue. Trans women have used women's spaces and played women's sports for decades with no issues. Look at coverage of trans issues from the 90s and before, and it seems astonishingly positive compared to now even though transition was a lot more difficult and trans people had fewer legal rights. Hayley Cropper in Coronation Street (a trans woman character in a popular UK show) arguably couldn't happen in the same way now - I know there is a trans woman character in Hollyoaks but not a popular and well-loved character in the same way. There was tabloid salaciousness when Hayley was introduced but the public were mostly supportive.
It's frustrating seeing TERFs in particular use medical misogyny as a weapon against improving trans healthcare when many cis women would also benefit from more inclusive healthcare. Cis women with vaginismus and trans men on testosterone share many of the same barriers to smear tests and vaginal ultrasounds for instance. Easier access to HRT (in the general sense of HRT*) and endocrinology for trans people can also help improve access to HRT for menopausal people and those with other gendered hormone issues like endometriosis (which is functionally an estrogen problem rather than a uterine problem).
*Cross-pond difference - in the UK, HRT generally only refers to that used for treating menopause symptoms, despite the fact that trans people use identical HRT for transition reasons (and actually that includes trans men too, who often use topical estrogen cream due to testosterone side effects). In the US, HRT generally refers to all types of HRT so it's common for trans people there to call their hormone treatment HRT...because it is, and the same goes for cis men with low testosterone. This is how I'm using HRT as a term here.
For anyone who might not want to click and read the whole thing the short version is: two young women, one cis and one trans, were in a pub ladies' room where the hand dryer didn't work. The trans woman claims she said "I'll wipe my hands on my jeans," while the cis woman claims she heard her say "I'll wipe my hands on my penis."
I saw the story unfold on Twitter, starting with the original post by Ruby Sampson, the young cis woman who felt threatened by a very crude comment that a trans woman allegedly said to her in a public bathroom. My immediate reaction was that, while it certainly would be a shocking comment to hear, it seemed like a very far-fetched thing for anyone to say, and I wondered if there was more to the story. Ruby, who is a Tory councillor, went to the media with her story and used it as a springboard to talk about the dangers of trans women in spaces she believes should be for cis women only.
The follow-up to this also came in the form of a Twitter thread, later written up into the article I linked above by Sophie McAllister, who believes she may have been the trans woman Ruby met. Her side of the story is quite different, and I must admit, sounds much more plausible to me.
Sophie has been very cautious to say she can't be SURE it's the same encounter, but her story certainly seems more in line with how most normal people actually behave. It's hard not to feel that Ruby may have been interpreting what she (mis)heard based on her own pre-conceptions about trans women. It's a case of "she said/she said," of course, but if both women are being truthful and it is the same encounter, it comes across to me as a tale of how fear and ignorance lead to bigotry.
(It also seems odd to me that Ruby is 22 years old and has apparently, from the tone of her account, has never met or spoken with a trans woman before in her life. Very unusual based on the 22-year-olds I know, but I suppose it's the circles you move in -- the 22 year olds I know also aren't Tories, or city/town councillors).
As a cis woman, I certainly don't like to feel threatened in public spaces, but I also feel that in that sort of space, a trans woman is at far greater risk than I am.
There are almost no UK newspapers or media organisations which reliably behave ethically where trans people are concerned and it requires a conscious effort to check and keep informed which very few people will make or know they should make to avoid getting sucked into this kind of misreporting. This non-incident hit the Daily Mail and was thus pushed out to a readership of millions - how many people will have seen Sophie's story?
British tabloids have done front pages with shocking stories attacking trans people which turned out to be 100% wrong and later were admitted to be fake - but not before a lot of damage was done and the stories widely believed and widely circulated. I don't think people realise quite how flimsy and mendacious a lot of this reporting can be and how toothless our press watchdog is.
As I've mentioned before these kind of stories have previously been used by racists and anti-gay campaigners and are not a new tactic. Our press is shot through with this kind of attack on vulnerable groups and we don't have any great awareness of it or any great model for tackling it.
While transphobia is rampant everywhere, I do think the UK press seems to be worse for uncritically repeating this kind of "moral panic" story. I can't imagine a local paper here picking up a story like Ruby's and running with it in the same way.
Also re the incident Trudy posted, I'm not aware of penises being particularly absorbent so it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. Plenty of trans women also don't have penises anyway so it's based on a big assumption.
I tend to look at Yousaf's decision in terms of party management rather than the substance of the bill itself. As the continuity candidate he was well-placed to benefit from the Bute House arrangement with the Greens, but the credibility and benefits of that agreement have been severely compromised by subsequent events, so that he is faced with a semi-organised centre-right opposition of around 15 SNP MSPs, who represent the preferences of around half the party membership but are excluded from the cabinet. In the dramatically changed circumstances, therefore, Yousaf's position of strength is now dangerously exposed on his SNP centre-right flank in circumstances where party unity is now more critical than the understanding with the Greens.
Towards the end of the leadership campaign Yousaf had edged towards the position that his decision would be based on legal advice, which in political-talk indicated he intended to allow the issue of GRR to wither on the vine, arguing a legal challenge had little prospect of success. Given that he now has the problem of organised disunity in his own party the re-consolidation of the Holyrood contingent is more important than the alliance with the Greens. To achieve that, however, would require a ministerial reshuffle that recognised the strength of his opponents in the SNP, acquiescence to the blocking of the GRR legislation, and a consequent break with the Greens. So to do, however, would destroy the foundations on which Yousaf's Bute House government rests. The decision to press ahead with the appeal, therefore, reflects a desperate attempt to restore SNP unity by an appeal to a constitutional principle rather than the substance of the GRR bill/act, itself. One doubts the gambit will wash with his Nationalist critics. My guess is that the Yousaf administration and its works, rather declarations, are proverbial dead parrots.
In one respect you are right in that the Greens might have decided to quit the administration had Yousaf refused to pursue the matter. On the other hand, given the unpopularity of the gender legislation with the electorate it's not a good issue on which to mount a constitutional campaign against Westminster, let alone unify a fractured SNP. Yousaf's decision reflects his weakness, not his strength, and may well hasten the demise of his administration. From an SNP perspective, given the stuff that's hurtling down the line towards it, and the existential threat it faces, party unity and the dropping of policies unwelcomed by most of its own electorate, especially when they are dead in the water, would seem to take precedence over Quixotic gestures. Scottish politics has reached the point where the Bute House understanding has passed its sell-by date, so that its major protagonists, Nationalist and Green, will be increasingly exposed to internal party voices demanding a revival of party independence from its straightjacket. The rejection of Forbes, which seemed sensible for the SNP at the time, now looks like a major error of judgement.
This is why you have Westminster planning to give women's shelters etc rights that they already have and would also still have under the reforms, because several groups including women's shelters and churches etc have always been able to disregard a GRC. Women's shelters just have almost universally not wanted to do so. Also for eg the legislation wouldn't change anything about toilet provision because toilet usage has never been legally enforced according to sex or gender, or even disability. It has always been legal for trans people to use the toilet of their choosing.
With respect, Pomona, I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. The two references I quote below are pretty representative of the reports I've seen. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary, which I await with interest.
According to an IPSOS poll published in Holyrood 7th February 2023, 50 per cent of the Scottish electorate supported the Westminster block on GRR and 33 per cent were opposed. Amongst SNP voters, 52 percent disapproved of the block, while 31 per cent approved.
On 14th February 2023, Lord Ashcroft reported similar findings: "On the issue behind Sturgeon’s latest confrontation with Westminster – the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill – I found only just over one in five Scots (22%) saying they supported the Bill and that London was wrong to block it. Nearly twice as many (43%) said they opposed the Bill and the UK government was right to block it. Overall, more than half (54%) said they opposed the reforms, with 29% in favour. Half said the UK government was right or within its rights to stop the legislation, with 33% saying it was wrong to do so."
However even if it was unpopular, surely you can grasp that human rights legislation is both necessary and sometimes unpopular. The death penalty is very popular with much of the public, that doesn't mean it should be brought back. Yet again you treat transphobia as a reasonable alternative view rather than something that gets trans people murdered.
All sorts of things, Pomona, are necessary and unpopular and deserving of rectification. Alas we live in a world in which according to my values many bad things take place and should be stopped but are likely to persist. All I'm doing here is pointing out why the GRR bill/act is dead in the water, and has nothing to do with what I think or don't thing about its merits or demerits. Nowhere do I treat "transphobia as a reasonable alternative view", nor, Louise, attempt to turn this discussion into a "Forbes fan fiction thread". I note that neither of you attempt to refute my arguments or conclusions. That the message isn't popular doesn't necessarily reflect on a supposed malign intent of the bearer.
If that is the case then Yousaf could be flogging a dead horse by challenging the blocking of GRR on constitutional grounds and will only serve to remind the voters how they dislike the legislation and support Westminster intervention.
The Ashcroft survey found that only 3 per cent rated GRR as the most important issue to them. It is often the case that on matters of low salience opinions tend to be more malleable that those of central importance to the respondent. Thus, while the data are not favourable to Scottish GRR advocates, campaigners might be able to change opinions on the issue.
In a number of ways we've been here before done that and got the T-shirt. Section 2A repeal in 2000 was massively unpopular at the time. The Scottish School boards association poll showed only 90 out of 777 boards favoured it. At the time a plurality - 48% of Scots thought same sex relationships were always or mostly wrong, only 37% of people thought they were rarely or not wrong at all. There was a huge media driven moral panic which saw a deluge of anti-gay sentiment. The government lost a key by-election, suffered in the polls and was hit with a millionaire funded hate-campaign which involved bill-boards and a tabloid blitz against Donald Dewar and Wendy Alexander.
The Labour Scottish executive held firm. Section 2A was repealed and support for homophobes has tumbled ever since. It's now at least 69% /18% in favour of same sex relationships being not wrong at all or rarely wrong.
Attacking LGBT minorities can earn short term bumps but generally ages badly in the long run. People do not look back on 2A and say Brian Souter and Cardinal Winning were right and Donald Dewar and Wendy Alexander were wrong. Labour won the next Scottish Parliament election in 2003. The anti-gay bump was that shortlived.
It's other things that will really do the damage when it comes to an election if they're not sorted.
In general, progressive legislation in Holyrood usually passes cross-party (as GRR did very handsomely). Labour's battle ground seats are central belt and the voters and the people they are in pursuit of are not Kate Forbes voters and the Lib Dems are not socially conservative at all (they voted 100% for GRR), so in practice there's a limit to what a potential 15 conservative-leaning Nat MSPs can do when there's only 31 Unionist Tories for them to vote for cuts and social conservativism with.
I agree with this, pointing out, as I did, Ashcroft's observation that the issue of GRR is of low salience with the overwhelming majority of Scottish voters; and that being so it was possible that opinion could change if exposed to the issue by advocates like yourself. Until the Supreme Court issues its ruling in what appears to be eighteen months time or there is a change of government at the next UK election, the legislation is paused, which provides. an opportunity for the bill's campaigners.
The reason why I suggested Robertson as a unity leader was less his position on GRR than his membership of the present administration and the strength of his curriculum vitae, which could command approval across the factions. Thus, while he is sufficiently progressive to serve under Yousaf, he is likely to be sufficiently detached from the former inner circle to present himself as the credible reformer the SNP so badly needs. From what you say he would appear more than satisfactory from a GRR perspective. Perhaps you have a more suitable alternative in mind. So be it. I don't have a dog in this fight. What seems clear to me, however, is that Yousaf's close association with the former regime, which his government reflects, leaves the him and the causes he espoused dangerously exposed to a right-wing coup within his party. GRR might be better served with a new standard-bearer.
Fair comment. You could be right, though the crisis seems remarkably deep. If matters go to court, then win or lose a lot of dirty washing in public beckons.
The aspect which intrigues me is what the Greens think about it all. Perhaps Alan Cresswell could enlighten us.
Well, the comments I've seen from watermelons have been along the lines of "bourgeois parties're gonna bourgeois".
Ashcroft's observation that the issue of GRR is of low salience with the overwhelming majority of Scottish voters
Not Ashcroft, but I recently completed a YouGov poll, and wished that I'd screenshotted the questions as I did it. One of the questions was to pick the five issues most important to you out of a list of about 15-20. I think I put the N.H.S. top of my list, and I didn't include GRR in my top five.
I wondered if the result might be spun, not as "Scottish voters very concerned about the NHS / education / the economy / climate change / immigration etc", but as "Scottish voters not concerned about GRR."
I felt as I was doing the survey that the survey results could be "spun." I'm used to YouGov surveys which require you to pick three out of five, for example, but this one had an unusually long list of options.
I don't think your remarks challenge the conclusion that GRR is anything other than a matter of low salience. Indeed, I suspect that had it not been on the list its absence might not have crossed your mind.
You do, however, raise a problem, namely that the survey structures your answer by listing issue and presenting them in a particular order. I wonder, for example, where GRR was ranked on the list presented to you and whether the listing you saw was in the same order for all respondents. The best surveys are those which are not self-administered, and in this case would have begun with an unprompted questions something like: "What problem do you think is the most important problem facing the Scottish Government". Any others". Then "Thinking of your own situation what problem would you like the government to address?" . Any others? Only then would it be appropriate to present the respondent with specific lists or issues. The purpose, of course, would be to try and establish where, say, GRR, figures on the respondents concerns and priorities.*
Regarding GRR I would want to know how knowledgeable an individual was about the issues involved and the contents of the legislation, as well as asking some basic questions as to what they understood by "transgender", "cisgender", "transphobia", and other terms commonly used in the debate. I might then ask questions relating to "women's space", "who should go to female prisons?" and so on. Then "Has the Scottish government done anything about transgender issues?" If "Yes" "What has it done about it?" My guess is that the results would reveal a huge amount of "Don't Knows".
On this issue I frequently ask friends and acquaintances what cisgender means? In virtually every case I've had to give them the answer, not being habitués of Epiphanies.
My guess is that the data would suggest that GRR is a matter of minuscule salience characterised monumental ignorance and indifference, and that clearly stated attitudes are only in response to structured questions present "for" or "against" answers. That being the case not too much certainty can be placed on the outcome, and there is a strong possibility that attitudes are open to change either way.
* A problem with structured and prompted questions is that they can convey levels of interest in a topic that do not exist. Open-ended questions, on the other hand, are much better at minimising the influence of the enthusiastic survey compiler. Where a questionnaire is administered the person asking the questions is advised not to show too much interest in the answers, and even to show indifference where the respondent is struggling.
Had it not been there, I know I would have noticed its absence, because, having scanned down the list I thought "That's odd! no mention of GRR!" On second reading of the list I spotted it, about 2/3 down, but the form of words was something about identity, I think.
I have no idea whether every respondent gets the list in the same order. I wish I had screen-shotted it - I felt at the time the question was oddly designed, or perhaps designed to be odd.
Politics are,however, for all of the population,not just for those with certain lived experiences. While we can all believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong,a politician should be ready to represent all of the electorate and to listen to them.
The politician is entitled to have his or her or their own strong or not so strong beliefs on certain matters,but the politician has to try to remember that he or she or they have to answer to the electorate as a whole who may not always be of the same mind.
Where do I defend Forbes?
But just in case, let us be very clear that in Epiphanies we will be agreed that trans folk have rights and those rights should be protected. Most things are up for debate, but some things are not.
Gwai,
Epiphanies
I can totally get behind the Highlands & Islands supporting local voices, and I appreciate that culturally those areas do have ties to particular forms of conservative Christianity. But as much as Forbes says she would respect everyone else's right to live as they wish, clearly she was only too happy to jump into bed with TERFs and now we have Westminster proposing to effectively eradicate GRCs entirely (because if you cannot have a legal gender change that publicly overrides your birth gender that makes a GRC redundant). Everyone says they're in favour of trans people being able to freely live their lives until they don't.
But regardless, it's beside the points that Louise and Gwai made which you haven't responded to at all.
However for those who talk about rights,they should think about the rights of others and their point of view which in a democracy they are surely entitled to have.
Politicians,if they wish to have the power entrusted to them by the people they represent,
have to be aware of the views of the whole electorate.
Trans people's rights don't negatively affect the rights of others.
It is about the requirements for a GRC, not about the right to identify ones gender.
Perhaps we need to invent an entirely new categorisation, namely “people with penises” and “people without penises”, and assign things like dressing rooms and toilets accordingly.
Basically it would be regularising the position that gender is entirely separate from biological sex, thus at a stroke making gender identification (or reidentification) much easier while also allowing those who want (for whatever reason) to know whether other people in the same space as them have penises or not to do so.
Pure sophistry.