>

You're completely wrong. It has not nor will ever be a choice. It's literally a mental disorder.
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? >

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. >

Do you have a source for changing medical sex? >

It’s called vaginoplasty and phalloplasty, Google at your own risk (descriptive pictures) >

Imagine doing something that could tear apart the UK just to stop trans peoples' lives from being slightly easier. Unfathomable bigotry and stupidity. >

It's not discrimination against trans people, it's to stop men "self identifying" as women to get into places like women's refuge centres legally, as well as stopping 16 year olds, who can't vote, making a life-changing decision that could possibly ruin their entire life. >

Thats just not going to happen >

Scottish people should’ve left that union ages ago. >

Polls show they don’t want to though >

It’s like Westminster wants Scotland to be independent. >

Do you want an independent Scotland? Because that’s how you get it. >

It has been blocked as equality laws have to be applied evenly across the entire UK. So while a region may vote for a change in some laws, they have to applied UK wide, not regionally, and that would require a UK vote. >

This is incorrect
I love getting downvoted for not wanting to repeat myself because someone posts the same false comment multiple times in a single thread. The UK counter is not based on equality laws, it’s based on positive discrimination laws relating to the public sector hiring and promotion processes. >

No, it really isn’t. Scotland are trying to modify transgender rights; modifying a persons rights has to be done at the UK level so that people don’t have different rights in Wales vs Scotland (for example). 
That’s why this bill Scotland has passed is outside of their devolved powers - because they cannot legally speak for the other countries in the union. This is why the UK parliament has blocked this bill - because the bill being passed is only something UK parliament can do. >

Not even slightly, you are absolutely wrong. 
They aren’t modifying transgender rights, they are modifying the right for Scottish people to get a document. It affects UK positive action laws in the public sector for promotions and hiring staff. >

"They also remove the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, with applicants only needing to have lived as their acquired gender for three months rather than two years - or six months if they are aged 16 or 17"
I can understand why the bill was rejected. Teenagers are extremely vulnerable and a diagnosis is not much to ask for if you're serious about transitioning. >

I think my estimated wait to see my gender clinic is like 14 years, been trans for 2. 
Teens can fuck and have their own teens the same age as them before they get a diagnosis depending on where you live. The whole reason for this is because of the fucking state of gender clinics and how ineffective they are. And the younger people are focused on but all the adults this would benefit are just as fucked. 
Its not a complicated thing to let GPs treat and assess with basic information. If you don't let them do that and create convoluted systems, you get the outcome of people killing themselves going years without help or you just remove the barriers. 
Nearly every trans gal I know does diy meds imported with little medical supervision. Because that's what the systems designed to be like.
Can get surgery fear mongering but hrt isn't some big boogie man thing and as long as being prescribed and monitored by a Dr its as low risk as any other form of care. >

Tavistock. 12k ahead of queue. 48 new treated a month. 
I would like to highlight how my 14 years is actually exceptionally optimistic and unlikely, this is giving them the benefit of the doubt they will pick pace up again which is at this point quite laughable. 
At this point I've been injecting myself with diy meds for 2 years and am who I wanted to be without proper help. Il have had surgeries abroad a decade before even discussing them in the UK. 
I hate everything about the systems here. 
Even the best places are like 4 or 5 year waits for first meeting, then usually another year of your proving you really are trans. Even 5 years is a really stupid amount to tell a 16 year old "hey just don't kill yourself for half a decade when you need help now, cautious supervised doses under a gp would be far more risky". >

Covid brought up all the issues with gic to a fervor. As everyone like me at 32 had enough and jumped in, whilst services got delayed. 
Again. 12k people ahead of me. 48-55 treated a month. Those are the numbers. Unless they treat more new patients a month the year of patient referrals currently being seen is entirely irrelevant.
Edit: if a system used to treat 150 patients per month and had less incoming patients, decreases to 50 patients a month and much more incoming patients. Then this is the obvious result to anyone down voting. 
A backlog from covid, reduced efficency and then an increase in people coming out as awareness grows has crippled these systems. The gic are not designed to handle this issue which is why Scotland was making the changes it was. >

Your brain is not fully formed until your mid 20s, children should not be allowed the option to make this life-changing decision >


children should not be allowed the option to make this life-changing decision

OK, I'll bite. Like, say, getting married, joining the army, having a child, owning a house, going to jail, voting in a nation wide referendum, aquiring large amounts of debt? Those kinds of life-altering decisions? Cause it seems like the Tories don't mind you ruining your life in a large number of ways, as long as you're not deciding how to treat your own body! >

Good, finally some sense of logic >

Can't wait until we are independent. >

Be happy how you were born and stop being weird >

Loser energy radiating from your comment >

Everyday I am more and more embarrassed to be English >

Thank god >

Fuck all of these people who hate trans people so much! We are HUMAN BEINGS!! We aren't up for DEBATE... we are HUMAN BEINGS >

I look forward to Scotland telling them to fuck off. >

I'm cheering hard for Scotland right now :) >

Same, everyone with a brain is <3 >

Lol and people still try to pretend the UK is 4 Countries when Parliament can pull shit like this >

Parliament literally consists of politicians from England, Wales and Scotland. It's baffling to me that people legitimately think it's just evil English people with mustaches in UK parliament.
Scotland and Wales are over represented because of the political system in Britain. >

In my experience most people who comment on the Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/Ireland VS England type posts are  usually Americans. For the most part America’s identity is welded to the events of 250 years ago, so they tend to template match and come up with ‘Scotland needs a tea party’ before they’ve finished the headline.
They always seem to see it as that time America wanted independence, not that time the southern states wanted independence >

Reading the comments here, one would get the impression that the UK government is opposed to gender changes while Scotland allows it.  From the article, gender changes are allowed.  The differences are age, a diagnosis and the length of the waiting period:


minimum age: 16 (Scotland) vs. 18 (UK)


remove the UK's need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria


have lived as their acquired gender for three months (Scotland) rather than two years - or six months if they are aged 16 or 17


So you could argue that Scotland is also oppressive. Why not 14 years of age instead of 16?  Why not 1 month instead of 3 months after living with their acquired gender?
UK vs. Scottish jurisdictional issues aside, this is a shades of gray issue.  No absolutes.
Edit: wow.  I see that many silent view this as an absolute.  Possibly, an absolute dislike of the Tories in London.  I'm Canadian and I read the article and then the comments out of curiousity. >

demanding you pass an arbitrary exam to be allowed to change your sex is inhumane, and it's in general really hard to get it in the first place "well they haven't made it as easy as possible" is not an excuse to not allow the law through at all, that makes no sense >

Why should the UK mandate Scotland law?
This is dumb >

… because Scotland is part of the UK? >

Scotland should be independent tho. >

Most founded Reddit hot-take. >

Sometimes I wonder how Scotland is so understanding of English stupidity. >

Who said so? >

Yes! This will give more fuel to Scottish independence and get is us one step closer to the complete dissolution of the British Empire. >

Such a bad look and dont really get why. >

I'm trans, post op (had the surgery), I don't have a gender recognition certificate because I transitioned overseas and thus the UK government refuse to give me one....I use the ladies restroom and changing rooms...never once had an issue ...If for some reason I was ever locked up they would put me in a men's prison, which the thought terrifies me....I am no threat to women but being in a male space I certainly am in danger myself.... >

Ah yes, the mere fact that trans people exist sure is the biggest problem for the UK right now >

Try reading before posting. >

I think the fact England is throwing its weight around to block non vital bills is a move of pure idiocy when Independence groups are on the rise. If they’ll block this, what stops them from blocking things that affect everyone? >

UK, not England. It's the UK parliament.
The SNP knew going into this that it would likely get blocked as all UK regions must have the same equality rules, so a change would need to go through the UK parliament. But they did this anyway, knowing the reaction it would garner, and using it to boost support for their primary goal. Independence. >

I support 99% of this bill and equal rights for all. However, the ability this bill gives for teenagers to transition before their brain has fully formed and they have moved on from peer pressure, especially in a culture of influencers, is the line sadly. As a parent and ex-teenager this will cause a huge amount of pain and suffering to those kids that regret their irreversible decision. 
Which isn't uncommon today
A shame the bill had to include that >

Keep in mind this brain formation crap is the same excuse Republican legislators are using to try and criminalize providing HRT to anyone under 26.
You're not fooling anyone. >

It's pretty well understood that brains continue to develop until you are into your 20s. My son is ADHD and he's starting to gain control, as we hoped, the closer he gets to his 20s.
It's not rocket science and I am as far from a republican as you could possibly get
As I said the bill is sound. It's just this one thing that stops many people being able to fully get behind it
16 year olds are kids man >

Thing is, trans people transition in spite of peer pressure, not because of it; if gender worked like that, which has been proven it doesn't, trans people simply wouldn't exist; we would have simply conformed to how we were brought up.
16 year olds can vote here in Brazil. And yeah changing your name can be a big thing and there are people who will say that a misguided teen can some how change their legal names and have SRS on a whim, but that is simply not true.
From way before coming out a trans person has to ask themselves dozens of times whether their family, their community, their classmates, workmates, whatevermates will be supportive or at least accepting and that can and does make a lot of us hesitate, and self-doubt, a lot. Pressure like that is hard to deal with as an adult, imagine a 16 year old. Society is built against trans people in such a way that it's preposterous to think somebody would *choose* to or be pressured into being trans. And even if, in the remote possibility that somebody was talked into it, or was not of "sound mind", as laywers like to say, there would be a huge line of family members, friends, and doctors even, ready to try and talk them out of it, because that's what happens to all trans people. >

How about we stop recognizing "gender" altogether? Men and women can dress how they want. In some spaces, where it is justified, like prisons, shelters, and changing rooms, people are sorted by their bio sex. Otherwise, you can "exist" however you want.
Everyone has a biological sex and it can't be changed. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something. (And boy do they have a lot of "affirming" treatments to sell!) "Gender" as a concept seems to be either sexist stereotypes, or some metaphysical equivalent of a coloured aura. I don't see why any government should be recognizing it. >

When a trans women wears a dress and make up to get recognised as trans by doctors she’s told she’s too much of a stereotype or she’s granted rights due to stereotypes. If she turns up dresses as most women are in trousers and no make up or as butch lesbian fashion she’s always refused recognition as being trans by her doctors for being too ‘masculine’. >

What rights or recognition are you talking about? >


Impacts their lives when it comes to marriage rights, death, pension, workplace

Doesn't the UK have full marriage equality since 2020 -- In fact everywhere except NI since 2014?
A GRC sounds like it was a workaround to a problem that no longer exists.

refused the grc by doctors

If the doctors were breaking the law that's a problem, but that's not what I asked. I'm saying GRCs should be obviated by equal rights everywhere that biological sex is not relevant, and where it is relevant is should be treated as what it is. >

Damn, I was going to post that. 🙂
Such a horrifying situation. >

It's hard for us old farts to understand, but gender is a choice now, like it or not.  The world changes.