>

Thats already a done thing. Actually the entire point. Currently you have to change your medical sex before you can change your legal sex.
Before you even get a diagnosis for Gender Dysphoria in fact. As your medical sex is taken as evidence of being trans.
Seems like you're commenting about a system you don't actually understand.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)


The UK government has decided to block a controversial Scottish bill designed to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender.
He added: "If the Scottish government chooses to bring an amended bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation."
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has argued there are no grounds for the UK government to challenge the legislation as it falls within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: bill^#1 Scottish^#2 law^#3 gender^#4 minister^#5 >

Putting aside the contents of the bill, for the UK government to challenge the devolved Socttish Parliament is a very bold move given the current political climate in Scotland >

This is a total non issue tbh. The average scot doesn't care about this bill. However the SNP was betting that Westminster would block this and can now speak about how ukgovernment is overturning elected scottish government decisions. >

Actually the average Scot is against it 70:30 and it seems to put the evil Tories aligned with majority Scots opinion. >

They’re against trans rights? That is disappointing. >

They are against a system that would make easier for abusers to claim to be trans to access vulnerable people.  The thing is a lot of people are concerned that safeguarding is being thrown away to help a small set of people without proper scrutiny and debate and against popular opinion. >

Curious, and how does this bill allegedly do that? >

3 month as living as new gender, no medical diagnosis necessary, then set up with your new change of name and ID. >

Ah, that would be totally worth it to sneak into another bathroom which I already could do anyway. >

What about health care?  Youth Provision?  Shelters?  Prisons? It's a complex issue, and one people can abuse.  Certainly the UN thought so and criticised the Scottish government approach. >

"critics of the plans are worried that allowing anyone to "self-identify" as a woman could impact on women's rights and access to single-sex spaces like refuges and changing rooms." >

Cool, let's instead put trans men in women's changing rooms and bathrooms. >

Bigots love to forget that trans men exist because they ruin the "Won't someone think of the women and children's safety?!?" narrative. >

Yes but men commit a large majority of sexual offences. Women are a lot less likely to, especially against those of the same sex. >

then why would you want men in women's bathrooms? using this logic, trans women should be in women's restrooms and trans men should be in men's restrooms. >

I mean, I feel like they think all trans men are these cute little 15 year old waif boys, but... like have you seen some of these trans men with muscles and thick beards? 
We shouldn't consider trans men predators either, but you don't stop men from being in women's bathrooms by forcing men to be in women's bathrooms. >

The appearance is irrelevant; the statistics are what matter. When over 40% of trans prisoners are in prison for sex-related offences, it’s important to safeguard. 
Trans men do not commit crimes at the male rate; trans women do. 
Why should women be placed at risk when gender-neutral restrooms exist? >

according to a study done by ucla, there is no evidence that gender nondiscrimination laws increase the risk of sexual assault.
i did find another study that says trans teens have a greature risk of sexual assault in schools that prevent them from using the correct facilities.
why should trans and gnc people be put in risk simply to quell the paranoia of transphobes? >

Thank God that in the midst of worldwide economic and political crisis the Tories are dealing with the real problem: Scottish trans teenagers >

It clashes with UK national law. It is not feasible unless the whole UK moves with it at the same time or National laws be changed to accommodate. No choice but to challenge it. >

I'm going to wait and see what the UK supreme court say about it. >

It has to interpret the laws of the UK parliament- because parliament is sovereign, not the UK government, nor the Scottish government. The UK government can and does get blocked by the Supreme Court, most famously when their prorogation attempt was blocked. >


Richard Ekins, an associate professor of law at the University of Oxford, called it "a startling judgment" that was "badly mistaken" and that the court showed "a clear loss of faith in the political process" when it ruled in an area that he and many other lawyers previously thought it did not have jurisdiction to do so. In the same vein, John Finnis, professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at the University of Oxford, considered that the Supreme Court had "forayed" into politics, calling the judgment "a historic mistake" and "a misuse of judicial power".

The prorogation was not blocked. It was started in early september and concluded in early october. The supreme court decision did not arrive until late september and did nothing to stop the prorogation from occuring.

The Conservative election manifesto contained a pledge to reform judicial review such that it "is not abused to conduct politics by another means". >

Dangerous game Sunak, seems we’ve moved on from the “Scotland is a valued part of this union and we’d hate to see you leave” line to “Scotland, know your place.” And people don’t tend to respond well to being told that… >

That will only work if the Scottish people like Trans people more than their English counterparts. We can only hope.
Edit: Just want to thank everyone who responded. I appreciate being reassured about this. >

According to a BBC poll 57% of Scots support the bill compared to only 20% opposing it >

I saw a poll saying 52% of Scots would support the move to block, so either way its complex >

From what I can gather; Scot’s like the basic idea but not the way it is proposed to be implemented >

That's what the UK government is saying as well. Whether you believe them is another story >

Polling literally from a Tory Newspaper. >

Yet when they were showing polls having a majority for leaving the UK; nationalist were treating it like goosple >

BritNats treat every poll as gospel. Even using polling from Tory papers to try and represent the Scottish people. Right now they're even trying to use random polls as more representative of the Scottish people than the votes of our literal democratically elected representatives. They're truly beyond delusional. 
If you want I could probably find that YouGov poll they kept spamming before the previous election? >

Leave it to the English to try to enforce gender standards on a nation of men in skirts. >

You joke but the very fact that there is such a perfect uniform/outfit(?) for those wanting to support trans rights whilst also supporting Scottish independence means that this could well be the turning point. >

Holy smokes, a pink/blue/white trans tartan would be PERFECT! >

20 points behind in the polls, the Tories have resigned to losing the next election, so they're torching the economy, the union and our civil liberties as they go out. >

Got to leave a shit show for the next guy it's the gubments way. >

I’m sick of being a political tool. I’m just trying to live. >

I don't get England's obsession with when/where other people take a piss.
It's just a bathroom, damn it. Let folks use the one they're comfortable with. >

Because this is not a competency that the Scottish parliament has. The UK equalities act is what’s supposed to handle this and the Scottish parliament is trying to subvert that. >

Ah yes the scots, well known for being compliant and deferential when the english tell them what to do >

How about blocking the UK government's anti strike bill instead >

What’s your gender? Scottish! Denied! What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? I don’t know that! >

Do you want the Scots to break away? Because this step 1 in forcing the Scots to break away. >

It might be, but it’s worth looking at the polling on this topic. Like the rest of the UK, the broad Scottish sentiment is in favour of more inclusivity, but polls that use specific wording for this bill (e.g. ‘do you support or oppose reducing the age at which a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16?) show a large majority against (or at least the ones that are in the Times do!). >

Panelbase came to a similar conclusion; it seems Scots take issue more with the implementation rather then the basic idea >

Its the same in the rest of the UK, despite Reddits opinion the English aren't like that Monkey Dust sketch about occupied oireland. The average Brit supports trans peoples rights to live their lives, they just also have concerns about protected womens spaces. Which is what the SNPs own advisors said, removing nearly all burden of proof that you're trans with no exceptions is not protecting trans people. Its handing power to transphobes who can now point to people abusing it. >

As someone who lives in a self id area, it doesn't make things worse for trans people. The women's spaces thing is based on a hypothetical that does not systemically happen. It's based on a lie. Why should trans people's lives be made worse based on a bigoted lie? >

A complex topic that cuts across both reserved matters in UK-wide constitutional law and gender equality? This isn’t going to be one of Reddit’s best discussions… >

Already seeing it. 9 comments in and yours is the only one pointing out the conflict with national law. All the rest are knee jerk on Tories/English being evil. >


knee jerk on Tories/English being evil

History is on their side. The English are the cause of unbelievable human death and suffering over the last 1,000 years >

It was only 500 years ago that England stopped getting fucked by the rest of Europe and started to fuck other nations.
And Scotland was right alongside them when they did.
1000 years ago England was nearing being violently taken over by another non-English king >

Reminder that the union came about when the Scots bankrupted themselves with a colonial Ponzi scheme and had to turn to the English for help. >

Shhh, this is reddit. Scotland good. England bad. Let's just ignore that Scotland is trying to rewrite their role in the British Empire. >

Sorry if this is a dumb question but do public bathrooms in the US & UK not have stalls?
I live in NZ and the bathroom debate has never made sense to me, people will use the other bathroom all the time because it's like a dad + young daughter, one of the bathrooms is full or not working etc. Are the stalls somehow less private overseas or something? Why are people worried about privacy or harassment or w/e when you don't share a stall anyway? >

As a kiwi that's moved over here, I can assure you the bathrooms are the same.
I don't think the bathroom debate ever had any relation to reality. It's always been a "won't somebody think of the children!" argument used instead of real facts >

Can anyone explain why it is that the UK government is blocking a bill that was already debated and signed in Scotland?
I'm Canadian, so I assumed that Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales/England were similar to provinces in that they had control over certain things (like education and health care), and the UK government handled the rest. What's going on exactly? >

The law comes into conflict with the UK-wide equalities law, for example allowing people to use the scottlish law to circumvent the rest of the union. 
This law whilst in theory "applies to scotland only", someone from wales could move there, change genders, and then move back to wales, having totally ignored the legal framework for changing genders in wales.
The overarching concern on its impact for uk-wide policy and coming into conflict with existing humans rights laws is in my opinion a legitmate one
this is the first time in history this mechanism has been used to block a law, its not a decision that has been taken lightly or on a whim. >

Except it doesn’t really conflict with the Equality Act at all. Nor has the Conservatives given their reasoning as to why it impacts it. >

That I presume a court will decide in the end. But I think it’s safe to say that both sides are using the issue to some extent for political effect. >

Except the bill had been through the Scottish parliament for 6 years with cross party support. The conservatives previous leader Theresa may had also lined up a similar policy while she was in power. It is now being used by the current conservative government as a political tool to drive up identity politics to score some points with their voter base, that this bill doesn’t really affect.
And while yes the Supreme court will decide on whether the issue is constitutional , this action creates the sentiment that Westminster undermines devolution. It also starts a slippery slope that opens up the possibility of future interventions. This gives the SNP more ammunition for their independence case. 
This has been an incredibly short-sighted move by the conservatives and will likely cause more animosity for some political goal scoring. >

How long it’s been there or what support it has isnt really relevant to the constitutional issue. Nor is whether May would have done the same - she was the U.K. PM. I have no doubt that the Conservatives are using it as political dog whistle , nor do I doubt that the SNP are too. As you say the Supreme Court will decide and it will create that sentiment but then is rather at least part of the point. If the Supreme Court decide in favour of the conservatives then the conservatives were right even if for the wrong reasons because if we don’t want a slippery slope to interventions then we also don’t want a slippery slope to legal overreach from devolved governments. >

I just don’t know how people think that some people will pretend to be trans just to get into women’s spaces like bathrooms. There’s nothing stopping anyone from going in there except social convention, and pretty much no one is going to change their entire life to creep in women’s bathrooms. Plus, if anyone (trans or cis) is acting creepy in a bathroom, they can still be held accountable for it. They are making an issue out of nothing. >

Because it's not really about that at all.  It's a disingenuous, nonsensical argument that's used because it invokes moral panic.
Anybody who thinks about it for more than 10 seconds can recognize it makes no sense.  But instead of saying "trans people existing makes me feel uncomfortable and I don't like them" they get to pretend "Oh no I just want to make sure people are safe from predators won't someone think of the women and children".
They're just "concerned" for other peoples "safety".  And if you don't agree, well obviously that's because you just don't care about peoples safety.  You must be the real bad guy here not them. >

So what gender did Scotland turn out to be ? >

Shame. >

So the brits are going to piss the scots off again i see. Great idea. Its not like they are already in complete crisis.
Time for the scots to secceed from the kingdom and join the EU again. Fuck the brits man. Absolute trash they are. Fuck em. >

With all this gender recognition.. what you will never see is insurance companies allowing you to put any gender other than m or f.
That being said, i dare you to try and force them. You will get squashed under the weight of the juggernauts. >

It’s kinda like they don’t care what Scotland says at all. Still trying to keep them from Brexiting are we? >

They don't care because they don't need to.
At the last election in 2019, the current Tory government got enough seats in England alone that they'd still have won by a comfortable 19-seat majority even if everyone in Scotland (or outside England, for that matter) had voted against them.
Johnson (who was the PM at that time) rose to power on the basis of the English-masquerading-as-British nationalist scheme that was Brexit. Brexit was opposed in Scotland (we voted Remain by a 24% margin) and Johnson was generally disliked up here- he was never meant to appeal to us.
Scotland hasn't returned a majority of Tory MPs to Westminster since the 1950s. However, that political chasm started becoming serious when Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979 on the basis of English votes, despite being widely disliked in Scotland.
In the last election, three quarters of Scots voted against the Tories.
England has continued moving to the right since and, quite bluntly, there isn't enough common ground left in the union for any compromise to be workable even if they wanted that.
What Scotland wants and what England wants are fundamentally incompatible, and no amount of trying to fudge the democratic process by pro-union has-beens like Gordon Brown can get around that. >


"Transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding," he said.

They mean gender? >

Nope they want to change how their sex is registered in the system. >

I thought everyone was agreeing that sex and gender were different. >

....they are. There is a legal record of your sex made when you are born. There is no legal record of your gender. >

But if there is agreement that they are different then how can you change your sex?  Seems problematic >

No it doesn't. >

Yes it does. You’re going to start referring to the wrong sex. Imagine changing your sex in medical records. You can’t see how there can be problems?