Turn on thread page Beta

B1007 – Gender, Sex, and Discrimination Bill 2016 (Second Reading) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If that's what you call debate I would say there are bigger problems, a simple yes/no statement doesn't really add anything of value

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A simple yes/no isn't a debate I agree, but we won't engage members to stay and develop, join parties and contribute if we are purely negative.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (1) A local authority shall not—
    (a) intentionally promote homosexuality
    So you're calling for a Russian-style law?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Who judges on what is 'promotion' of homosexuality?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Well, you've ignored all my counter arguments, so I'll rephrase

    1) Why use DNA tests to determine sex? Aren't ultrasound examinations satisfactory?

    Also, why do you support making new toilets unisexual? Doesn't this kind of disagree with your overall point of separating male and female?*
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I find it worthless for an MP to simply say aye or no, I find it downright odd that somebody who isn't even an MP does it, and further somebody not even in a party

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You guys are pretending to be MPs, I'm pretending to pretend to be an MP.

    *shrugs*
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Well, you've ignored all my counter arguments, so I'll rephrase

    1) Why use DNA tests to determine sex? Aren't ultrasound examinations satisfactory?

    Also, why do you support making new toilets unisexual? Doesn't this kind of disagree with your overall point of separating male and female?*
    They are not counterarguments, the first one is because ultrasound does not identify a baby's sex when some hermaphrodites are concerned, it is in this small number of cases where DNA tests will need to be used as an alternative, but for most babies an ultrasound will be fine. No, the aim is not to marginalise transsexuals, but to remove the need for councils to install a third toilet at huge cost, take steps to move to a genderless society, and introduce public facilities where sex, and gender is not an issue.

    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    Who judges on what is 'promotion' of homosexuality?
    The courts decide if something is promotion; that is how decisions are made for a lot of British laws.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I will not support this as long as it legislates that all new public toilets are to be unisex. There are many people who would not like both sexes to be in the same toilet, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. We should not be appeasing the SJWs by creating the unisex toilets that they love so much.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The courts decide if something is promotion; that is how decisions are made for a lot of British laws.
    So if some parent is annoyed that their child has come home from a PSHE lesson and started talking about homosexuality and the parent takes the school to court. What kind of punishment would the school get?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    B1007 – Gender, Sex, and Discrimination Bill 2016 (Second Reading), Nigel Farage MEP MP
    Gender, Sex, and Discrimination Bill 2016

    A
    BILL
    TO

    End the concept of gender in the United Kingdom and modify discrimination laws.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-


    1 Genders and Sex

    (1) The use of gender on official documents will be replaced with the use of sex.
    (a) The two options will be male and female.
    (2) The sex of a child shall be recorded on the child's birth certificate.
    (a) If the sex of a child is in doubt, a DNA test shall be conducted to identify the baby's sex.
    (3) Males shall be referred to as Mr, Master, Sir, Lord, Prince, Duke, King.
    (4) Females shall be referred to as Miss, Mrs, Lady, Princess, Duchess, Queen.
    (5) Other titles dependent on the profession of an individual will be available, including but not limited to;
    (a) Professor, Doctor, Mayor, Councillor, Speaker, Delegate, Prefect, Premier, Ambassador.
    (b) The use of Mx is prohibited.
    (6) On renewal of public documents or licences, applications will be checked against birth certificates to find the sex of the applicant.

    2 Public Facilities

    (1) All public toilets will be male, female, or disabled in classification.
    (a) All new public toilets shall be unisex in classification.
    (2) All existing public changing rooms will relabelled to be male, female, or disabled in classification.
    (a) Future public changing rooms will take the form of individual, unisex changing cubicles.
    (3) In all public facilities people are required to use the facility that matches their sex.

    3 Discrimination

    (1) Private organisations reserve the right to discriminate against customers on grounds of sexual orientation.
    (2) Private organisations may not discriminate on any other grounds when employing a person except;
    (a) on grounds of nationality where the private organisation may choose to employ a British citizen over a foreign citizen.
    (3) Public organisations may not discriminate against any person on any grounds, except;
    (a) during employment where a public organisation will be allowed to employ a British citizen over a foreign citizen.

    4 LGBT+ Recognition

    (1) The LGBT+ movement shall be referred to as LGB in official government documents.
    (2) All government funding for groups promoting the LGB movement shall stop.

    5 Teaching

    (1) A local authority shall not—
    (a) intentionally promote homosexuality, transgenderism, the concept of gender, or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality, transgenderism, and the concept of gender.
    (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality, transgenderism, or the concept of gender as a pretended family relationship.
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating, or preventing the spread of disease, nor to meet the inquisitive demands of pupils.
    (3) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
    (4) In subsection (1)(b) above “maintained school” means,—
    (a) in England and Wales, a county school, voluntary school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944; and
    (b) in Scotland, a public school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

    6 Short Title, Commencement, and Extent

    1) This bill may be cited as the Gender Bill 2016
    2) This bill will be enacted straight away following Royal Ascent.
    3) This bill shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.

    Changes

    1. The list of titles has been extended to include more options, the need for DNA tests has been reduced, a gradual implementation of a genderless society has been made clearer, and confirmation section 1 only applies to official public documents.

    2. Public facilities will be slowly changed to become unisex with existing facilities being classified as male, female, or disabled. It will not be a criminal offence to use the wrong facility.

    3. Section 3 is clearer about the grounds businesses can use to discriminate, it is now illegal to discriminate based on sex.

    4. In section 4 the recognition of the LGBT and the LGB movement applies to official government documents when referring to the LGBT movement.

    5. Section 7 has been reworded to make it clear not teaching homosexuality, transgenderism, and the concept of gender does not outlaw dictionaries, and any material with information about those topics being in classroom; the courts have the power to make judgement decisions.


    Notes

    Using biological sex over gender ends the debate around trying to be gender neutral, and allowing establishments to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation allows a bed and breakfast to deny renting a room to a gay couple on religious beliefs. Companies will nearly always choose not to discriminate against anyone to avoid backlash or for business reasons, but it should not be a requirement for them apart from sex discrimination which is illegal.

    Councils in the UK are starting to install additional public toilets labelled gender neutral to satisfy the complaints of the LGB+ group. I believe the cost of these extra toilets cannot be justified when budgets are being cut, and the problem can be easily solved by replacing the use of gender with the use of biological sex, of which people are male or female. Hermaphrodites can be DNA tested to see if they were meant to be male or female.[/spoiler]
    Well, that was fun reading... now to tear it apart.
    1, well there aren't any particularly bad ideas in there, but I have a feeling if I was transgender, then there may be a few issues kicked up, many people seeing this as the removal or reversal of their humans rights by which they are no longer as free to practice as they would have been at other times. But nothing I personally disagree with.

    In fact as we go on to act 2 I agree more especially 2,1,a and 2,2,a I think unisex toilets are a great solution, in fact in my school in the older A and B blocks we have gendered toilets, whereas in the new block (C) we have unisex toilets, even though it's only the younger students who use C block, they still manage to be the cleanest toilets and the best kept. I can find only one fault with unisex toilets and that is would it be easier on a late Friday night for a drunkard to hide in the toilets and take advantage of a woman? (There is always the possibility if these were in a more populated area there'd be more people to aid the woman's resistance). And on to 2,3 transgender people sometimes go to the extent of looking a lot like someone of the other gender, how would men feel if someone appearing to be a woman walks into their toilets or inversely the women react seeing someone who's physical appearance is that of a man walk in on them?

    3,1 Incredibly controversial, and I have no doubt I will get some hate for saying this, but I agree with it. As long as no one is physically harmed as a result of the decision, I don't feel Christians (or people of any other religion for that matter) should be forced to do something their religion says they cannot. And with a decreasing Christian population in the country, it is more likely that there will be fewer places rejecting them every year. The rest of 3 is quite understandable and I can see what you are aiming at but define 'A British citizen'? A person living in the UK? One born here? One with 3 generations of heritage here? I think such a thing would lead to racism in the workplace as most people see 'white' as British. But I understand that many people are displeased that there are job openings for the immigrants but not for them so the companies appear to not be racist. I do however feel the addition of the illegality of the discrimination of sex would be a fair and good implementation.

    4. Well that was blunt. I feel that may be too far. The government should support LGBT as much as any other group for their freedoms, I know that you're trying to remove gender identity from society so I suppose removing the T would be fair, but to blank the rest of the LGBT community for funding and so on, I think would be too far so 4,1, that's fair but 4,2 is a little close to call.

    5. Promotion of homosexuality... ok then. I would say I agree, the idea that you should be homosexual or transgender or to be gains more attention and higher status (for equality's sake:|). I think people should learn to treat sexuality as a non-limiting factor. No one cares if you're straight as the M25 or a roundabout unless they have specific religious reasons to reject them. So in 5,1,b where you say you should not even accept them? I think you have let your religion influence this bill, and I feel that many atheists would strongly object to the inequality of homosexual and transgender people in society. I think we have reached a point where there are fair laws in place to stop discrimination and we need to leave that one there. (If you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of homosexuality in a religious context I would be willing to have that discussion at another time.) 5,2 is a little unclear I'm assuming it means that teachers will not oppose a students homosexuality but will not give them advice on the topic? Now that right there would be a bad idea but just in case I misinterpreted that I will leave it for now. And the other two subsections are unimportant outside a court of law as definitions.

    And that is all there is to write about for now. I hope you take some constructive criticism from this comment and can implement a fairer and less controversial bill. Feel free to respond to any argument given in this summary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, no to unisex toilets. I want to use urinals without women behind my back.

    (Original post by Aph)
    Still no. You cannot legalise for a change in society.
    It's funny you say that since that's exactly what you've been trying to do in your bills and considering that every major cultural change so far has been shoved down people's throats from the legislative body as a result of political lobbying—women's vote, integration of Negroes, gay marriage, sheltering economic migrants, etc. This is merely a change the other way because they went too far.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Yeah, no to unisex toilets. I want to use urinals without women behind my back.



    It's funny you say that since that's exactly what you've been trying to do in your bills and considering that every major cultural change so far has been shoved down people's throats from the legislative body as a result of political lobbying—women's vote, integration of Negroes, gay marriage, sheltering economic migrants, etc. This is merely a change the other way because they went too far.
    ummmmmm wait... You don't agree with womens votes ect...
    And no it wasn't 'shoved down people's throats' at all but the weight of popular opinion was behind it or there was scientific evidence proving that the basis for such laws were wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    ummmmmm wait... You don't agree with womens votes ect...
    And no it wasn't 'shoved down people's throats' at all but the weight of popular opinion was behind it or there was scientific evidence proving that the basis for such laws were wrong.
    Your naivety is almost cute.

    If you could read with comprehension, you'd know I didn't say I disagreed with women having the right to vote, but that most people at the time disagreed.

    There was no ‘scientific evidence’ when they erased homosexuality from DSM. It was done in response to political pressure and lobbying, such as when activists stormed their conference and became violent.

    The change in attitudes towards women and Negroes (as they were called at the time) was also motivated by nothing more than short-term political gain (they were revolting and easily influenced as potential voters) and in some by the realisation that they weren't so different after all…
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Your naivety is almost cute.

    If you could read with comprehension, you'd know I didn't say I disagreed with women having the right to vote, but that most people at the time disagreed.
    can never be too sure with you. And you spoke with such distain I thought it best to confirm.

    There was no ‘scientific evidence’ when they erased homosexuality from DSM. It was done in response to political pressure and lobbying, such as when activists stormed their conference and became violent.

    The change in attitudes towards women and Negroes (as they were called at the time) was also motivated by nothing more than short-term political gain (they were revolting and easily influenced as potential voters) and in some by the realisation that they weren't so different after all…
    for the first I think you will likely find that that was to do with the weight of public opinion. Although I'm not massively familiar with LGBT history.

    And also again I think you will find that the weight of public opinion was almost certainly behind black and female movements. that include those able and unable to vote.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    can never be too sure with you. And you spoke with such distain I thought it best to confirm.


    for the first I think you will likely find that that was to do with the weight of public opinion. Although I'm not massively familiar with LGBT history.

    And also again I think you will find that the weight of public opinion was almost certainly behind black and female movements. that include those able and unable to vote.
    I suggest you get familiar at least with the history before you claim something was done based on scientific evidence.

    No, it wasn't, at least if we don't take a nation as big as the US, for example, as a single unit. While people in metropolitan areas may have been supportive, others were essentially told what to think. If only we could have a reliable statistic, right? Too bad the legislators don't want us to know the numbers.

    There's also a difference between being supportive of a cause because you've been manipulated by the lobby and being supporting because you've gradually changed your opinion based on direct experience.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I suggest you get familiar at least with the history before you claim something was done based on scientific evidence.

    No, it wasn't, at least if we don't take a nation as big as the US, for example, as a single unit. While people in metropolitan areas may have been supportive, others were essentially told what to think. If only we could have a reliable statistic, right? Too bad the legislators don't want us to know the numbers.

    There's also a difference between being supportive of a cause because you've been manipulated by the lobby and being supporting because you've gradually changed your opinion based on direct experience.
    I said evidence or opinion. I did not specify which was which.

    Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that black people were overwhelmingly in support of black votes and women were overwhelmingly in support of women's votes and they make up part of popular opinion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    integration of Negroes
    I'm sorry but what decade do you think we are in?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    I'm sorry but what century do you think we are in?
    Fixed that for you mate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Fixed that for you mate.
    1700s maybe?



    Edit: Sorry I know I'm going off-topic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. Once again, written and decided by elitist, conservative and homophobic old morons. Completely irrational.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, I would have to very much agree with PetrosAC in that this is an extremely difficult bill to enforce. However, at this point I do not even believe that it matters considering the fact that this bill is so overwhelmingly negative and could have deep-routed consequences in the future, including taking an obvious step backwards in equal rights for the LGBT+ community. Furthermore, this bill would leave people who have already transitioned in limbo, resulting in alienation from society which is undoubtedly dangerous and could lead to disastrous effects for them as a group, and the wider society as a result. Intolerance should never be encouraged by Government, particularly when it can result in threatening behaviour which would leave a whole minority vulnerable.Meanwhile, Section 3 of this bill is absolutely problematic in that you are putting the will of businesses above that of individuals which is utterly wrong and, as such, leaves a whole group of people open to potential discrimination which they should not have to face in their day-to-day lives. I do respect difference of opinions here, and do understand that often this is a result of religious beliefs but on balance I do think that allowing private organisations to discriminate only against sexual orientation is destructive - both in practice and in terms of symbolism (in that it is the only group which can actually be discriminated against by these businesses). Likewise, I would also argue that being allowed to employ a British citizen over a foreign citizen is fundamentally flawed, and once again leads to unequal opportunities in this country despite the fact we pride ourselves on being able to provide the absolute opposite.

    Section 4 is simply disrespectful in that you would rename a whole movement within Government purely to make a point and effectively alienate transgender people while also disregarding hugely important transgender people who fought for the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals just as they did for transgender people. In addition, the fact that funding for LGBT+ charities would be terminated is utterly disgusting, regardless of whether you agree with the group because, at the end of the day, these charities do very important work in tackling the fact that “LGB youth are 4 times more likely to attempt suicide” than their heterosexual counterparts, and that “nearly half of young transgender people have seriously thought about taking their own lives”. [Source: http://www.thetrevorproject.org/page...about-suicide]. This would be like a two fold blow, considering the fact that there is a clear potential for the suicide rate of the LGBT+ community to rise after the implementation of this bill.

    Also, how in any way would it be fair to terminate funding to these groups? It wouldn't just be a step in the wrong direction, it would be a colossal leap backwards. In the same way, any implementation of section 5 would be about as anti-progressive as possible, considering that the first time legislation of this kind was introduced was in 1988 with the introduction of Section 28 of the Local Government Act of 1988. It was rightly repealed in 2003 when it became very clear that it had been wrong, and returning to it now would essentially take us back 28 years!Once again, this kind of legislation could lead to a clear difficulty of self-acceptance and as such could potentially have dangerous consequences including such as increasing the already astronomically high suicide rate within LGBT+ teens. Regardless of whether you agree with their lifestyle, I believe that you would value all human life and thus I urge you to consider these consequences.

    As such, I would therefore also urge all MPs to vote against this bill. Even if you do not agree with the LGBT+ community it is important to realise that this bill could certainly lead to pitting people against each other and effectively turn society into a less tolerant, more divisive, nation. In addition to this, there is no doubt that this bill could have a profound impact on the lives of LGBT+ people, particularly those who are transgender, which is particularly important due to the fact that they already have a frighteningly high suicide rate and effectively shunning them from society would only make this worse. It could also undoubtedly lead to people thinking that they are justified in their homophobic behaviour which is greatly destructive and encouraging this behaviour is frankly wrong on all levels.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 23, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.