4 year olds able to change gender in Scotland

There are all manner of rights which conflict with others - the rights of people who are religious for example, and the rights of people who are not. Nobody is suggesting that anyone’s rights are being compromised, everyone is entitled to equal rights and protection from unlawful discrimination.

We’ve been introducing four year olds to religion for generations now and it’s not as though they are expected to have the same understanding of religion as adults. Ideas in relation to gender are delivered in the same way, recognising that children do not have the same cognitive capacity as adults (I often find myself questioning the validity of that assumption tbh as though the reverse might well be more accurate 😏).

I think those people who are determined to state that the only two genders are those which match their biological sex are transphobes. There are several in this thread.

On rights, was it that if trans people gain rights, someone has to lose rights. I reject that premise as nonsense. But if you can copy it again, I'd be happy to talk through.

That’s not the analogy I was making. But if that’s what you’re giving me to work with - it would be unreasonable for an adherent of Islam to expect that they should be able to compel anyone else to behave as though they too are an adherent of Islam. It would be equally unreasonable to expect that an adherent of Islam could be compelled to behave as though they are not an adherent of Islam.

In either case it could constitute harassment were anyone to continue to try and coerce or humiliate another person who does not share their world views or beliefs. These protections exist in a democratic society for good reason, with the aim of treating all people as equals before the law, or as you suggest - people maintaining the right to advocate for whatever is in their own interests, while harassment of anyone is still unlawful.

I don’t know am I sufficiently making the point that you cannot force people to behave as though they share your beliefs, but at no point whatsoever does anyone have the right to harass another person. These are laws which apply to all people in society equally, regardless of what their beliefs are or who they choose to advocate for.

Standard "mermaids fare "

Lump in 700 LGBT teens ask questions around transphobia experiences and link that to mental health and then lead the discussion to 700 trans teens in school that we are aware of ,

But in truth they interviewed 700 teens who are likely predominantly gay and lesbian with a tiny minority of that figure identify as trans or other covered by the umbrella , which then allows the authors to say that there is thousands of trans children in schools when in fact it could less than 60 children out of 760,000 school aged children in Scotland ,

You're either deliberately changing the argument, or you’re not fully grasping it, and I’m leaning more towards the idea that you’re not fully grasping the idea that being expected to behave as though one subscribes to an ideology they do not, is unreasonable.

I’m not questioning the idea that the ideology exists, I’m not questioning that adherents of that ideology exist, or that people who share in and believe in the fundamental tenets of the ideology exist. I’m not questioning that they have that legitimate right as recognised in law.

The point I’m making, is that people who do NOT subscribe to a particular ideology, cannot be compelled to behave as though they do, regardless of how hurtful or unreasonable it is to anyone else, regardless of how much of an activist they are. It’s why I don’t take any notice of activists or give them the recognition they crave - I choose to ignore them because I do not subscribe to their ideology.

I’d take your point if anyone were harassing someone who did not subscribe to their world view and they were trying to compel anyone to do so. That’s certainly the argument that Muslims who withdrew their children from schools in the UK chose to run with, and I expect similar scenes outside schools in Scotland where these guidelines are implemented.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of social transitioning at all .no point you saying where in the guidance it says it .

It's social transitioning .

Nothing more to add on it

Granting basic human rights to individuals does not take away basic human rights from others. I do not believe that certain groups racists, homophobes, transphobes have basic human rights to discriminate or cause harm to others. Dressing up racism, homophobia, transphobia and any other form of discrimination as human rights is disingenuous. Believing transphobes are the actual victims in society is part of that ridiculous narrative.

You contradict yourself. "Granting basic human rights to individuals does not take away basic human rights from others". And yet, that's what you've just advocated above.

Where?

The whole point of rights to protection against the will of the majority.

Re the definition of a transphobe - you said yesterday that No one on this thread would fit as a transphobe by my definition. And then accuse me of contradicting myself.

I dont think sex and gender are as linked as you do. So be it. I am willing to respect that trans people do. And they are free to take actions to make their life easier. Others want to prevent them from doing that. I think that is denying them a basic human right.

I get it alright, you’re advocating that anyone should have the right to behave like an immature child when they’re not getting everything their own way. “Be kind and understanding” but only with people who share your beliefs - everyone else is a transphobic asshole. You’re in no position to school anyone about the meaning of respect when your definition is predicated upon people seeking your approval.

For example, the belief that gender is a spectrum has nothing to do with the rights of people who are transgender, it’s a belief which is part of your own ideology. I cannot be compelled to respect that belief, I cannot be compelled to behave as though I too SHARE that belief or support it in any way.

The point you keep missing is that fundamental and all important right which everyone has already -

I explained to you already that I choose to ignore activists, and your attempts to coerce anyone who doesn’t support your ideology or share your beliefs is exactly why - you say everyone should meet halfway, and the halfway point as far as I’m concerned is your right to hold your beliefs, and my right to hold mine, and we both accept that everyone has the right to hold beliefs which we do not share, support or subscribe to.

Going beyond that halfway point is your attempt to undermine my beliefs which are part of my identity, which in my view is an unreasonable imposition on anyone. What you’re doing is rather like calling someone frigid because they don’t want to have sex with you. It might be effective if I were insecure enough about myself that I felt I needed your approval, but seeing as I’m not and I don’t need your approval, then when I make it clear that I do not support your ideology, the obligation to respect my decision is on you, not me.

I’m perfectly prepared to own the consequences of decisions which are my responsibility, however it appears you’re unwilling to do the same, and instead you’re trying to shift responsibility onto me for the fact that you’re put out by my unwillingness to support your ideology.