There was no proper conference debate
Oh come ON.
How trans rights took over Scottish politics — and aren’t going away
Henceforth, no medical diagnosis would be needed and a person would be required to “live in” their acquired identity for only three months before becoming eligible for a GRC. The age at which such certificates could be gained would also be lowered to 16. In effect, a person could “self-identify” as a man or a woman as they saw fit and the system, the nuts and bolts of officialdom, would accept this as a manifestation of their true selves. The proposals would “make the lives of trans people in this country that little bit better and easier”, Sturgeon said, “and I think that is something to be proud of”.
Sturgeon’s supporters — and the former first minister herself — note that the government’s proposals were the subject of not one but two consultations over five years and claimed that the bill was “the most scrutinised” piece of legislation in the history of Holyrood. Speaking to the United Nations in 2019, Sturgeon insisted that “as an ardent, passionate feminist […] I don’t see the greater recognition of transgender rights as a threat to me as a woman or to my feminism”.
If that’s true it just means she doesn’t know how to think. If men can “identify as” women and then help themselves to everything that belongs to women, that is in fact a threat to any woman “as a woman.” Men get to help themselves to everything that belongs to us. How is it not obvious that’s a threat to women as women?
“The way it was handled is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with the party,” said Joanna Cherry, the former MP and long-standing critic of Sturgeon’s leadership.“There was never actually any proper vote or debate on the concept of self-ID at any SNP conference. It was tagged on to other things. There was no proper conference debate. There was no chance for anybody to go, ‘You know, I think there is a problem here’, and no matter how reasonably it was said — you were shot down.”
Isn’t it fascinating that it’s women’s rights that get brushed aside this way?
“It’s completely baffling to us that it’s become such a big issue,” said Lorna Slater, co-leader of the Scottish Greens. “We don’t really understand what all the fuss is about, in the sense that the Gender Recognition Act allows a trans person to change the gender marker on their birth certificate. That’s it.”
Oh come on. Nobody can be that stupid. That’s not “it” – there’s a lot more that’s “it.” Men invading women’s spaces, prizes, awards, political organizations, groups, clubs, marches, protests, campaigns, toilets, dressing rooms, jobs – all that is also “it.” Very much it. All that is it and it’s what we object to. Now do you really understand?
According to Slater: “Somehow gender and the gender recognition act has become conflated with safety for women and girls, or how the police handle prisoners — they start wrapping up all these issues together when what they’re really expressing is discrimination against trans people.”
Not “conflated with.” Understood to be a threat to. We “wrap up all these issues together” for the brutally simple reason that they are connected. (It’s hard not to scream in all italics at this much willful performative idiocy.)
Yousaf’s handling of the crisis might have been inept but it was a further demonstration of just how dangerous, and even toxic, the issue had become. “The public instinctively don’t like this, they don’t get it,” said an SNP insider who supported both Sturgeon and Yousaf. “It makes them hugely uncomfortable. It damaged Nicola and Humza.” Even many of those who backed the bill without reservation now admit it was “badly handled”. Some insist that an undue amount of attention has been devoted to an issue “that affects such a small group of people”.
The bill’s opponents consider that concern an example of the myopia that has bedevilled the process all along. In their view, women can hardly be considered a “small group of people”.
And it’s so tellingly hilariously enragingly weird that so many people think that’s exactly what women are – just some tiny boring sniveling group of eccentrics.
There should be no “gender marker” on passports, any more than there should be an “astrological star sign” marker on them. In any case they probably actually mean “sex marker” which, like sex itself, be unchangeable. Does anyone get to change the date of their birth on a passport? No. The same should hold for sex. That it does not is not an indication of any “kindness” or “progressivism” on the part of the Passport Office, but a measure of the dangerous degree of institutional capture that this demonstrates. That official government documents are subject to delusional vandalism of this type makes them less than worthless, but actively deceptive. That alone should have been enough to say “No,” without any of the intrusions and impositions upon women that inevitably come with the promotion and enforcement of genderism.
Well, to be fair, the number of women who are safe and secure enough to speak out about this without fear of reprisal and vilification is very small. In fact it’s zero.
half the population IS only a small group of people once you understand that women aren’t completely people.
Maybe we can arrange an upgrade to 3/5ths of of a person.