[Cherie]

Whenever people accuse JK Rowling of transphobia, something always puzzles me. They never quote a single word she’s said.

This strikes me as very odd. After all, if what Ms Rowling has said about trans people is so shocking, so cruel, so mind-bogglingly hateful, then surely her critics should quote her exact words, so that the rest of the world can see the full horror for themselves. Mysteriously, however, these critics always seem completely unable to cite even one transphobic utterance. How can this be? Google is normally such a reliable resource. If someone as famous as Ms Rowling has said anything transphobic, it should be the work of moments to locate a record of it. Yet none of her critics have managed to do so. In fact, all that anyone seems able to find are quotes in which she merely defends the rights of women, without ever abusing or threatening trans people.

What a conundrum. I do hope that one day someone will solve it.

At any rate, no matter where they stand, one thing that everyone can agree on is that JK Rowling’s intervention in the gender debate has been seismic. And never more so than now. Because, had it not been for the creator of Harry Potter, Nicola Sturgeon wouldn’t have resigned as Scotland’s First Minister.

It sounds a grand claim. But I genuinely think it’s true. Whatever Ms Sturgeon may have claimed when announcing her decision, the main reason she had to go is her calamitous approach to gender self-ID. That one row shattered her reputation irreparably.

For the first time in her career, she looked desperately out of her depth. In the past, even her fiercest opponents were forced to concede that she was a formidable politician. An expert performer in debates. An unflappable interviewee. She possessed a rare ability to answer a question politely while giving the impression that, if the reporter dared to push it, she could reduce him or her to rubble with the merest glance.

n recent weeks, however, that ability has deserted her. When asked whether transgender rapists should be housed in women’s prisons or men’s, she looked alarmed, confused, all over the place, like a giraffe on ice skates. As far as I could make out, amid all the spluttering and stammering, her message seemed to be that trans women were definitely women – unless they’d committed certain crimes, in which case they immediately became men, although only until they’d completed their prison sentence, at which point they immediately became women again.

At any rate, whatever she was trying to say, one thing was clear: she couldn’t handle the pressure. And that pressure was on her in large part thanks to JK Rowling.

Before Ms Rowling made her first public comments on gender issues, back in 2019, I suspect that most people in Scotland, or for that matter the rest of Britain, had hardly given them a thought. Yet such is her fame – not to mention her apparent imperviousness to online abuse – that she was able to drag the debate into the public eye, and keep it there. It was no longer possible to avoid it. But for her, therefore, Ms Sturgeon simply wouldn’t have faced such intense scrutiny on this issue from the media.

Even then, the most intense scrutiny continued to come from Ms Rowling herself. “Never forget,” she told her 14 million followers on Twitter last month, as the uproar over biologically male rapists in women’s prisons reached its peak, “Sturgeon, her government and supporters have insisted that it is ludicrous to imagine anyone would dress in women’s clothes to get access to vulnerable women and girls. Wouldn’t happen. Everyone is who they say they are. To question this is hate. ‘The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’ George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four …”

Mere weeks later, Ms Sturgeon is on her way out. We don’t know who will succeed her as First Minister. But whoever it is will need to be tough, fearless, unflinching – and have a view on gender issues that reflects most voters’.

Unfortunately, however, the person who best matches that description is too busy writing books.I




https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other...b4e04d87d80070

[LeatherTrumpet]

[GoldHeart]

Sturgeon was stuttering in the recent trans prisoner mess when questioned , she fell on her own sword ..... it's as simple as that . She's resigned before she was pushed, as she couldn't do the job anymore.

[LeatherTrumpet]

[arista]

[arista]

[LeatherTrumpet]

[LeatherTrumpet]

@ nicola

Youtube video

[arista]

[arista]

Kate Forbes
Ash Regan
Humza Yousaf

Today there is 3 of them,


https://kate-forbes.scot/about.html
The New One Today.

Closes this Friday


March 27th we get the Result



BBC Scotland News

[LeatherTrumpet]

For those who don’t know Hamza "Useless" is the prime example of a terrible politician.
He has no life experience outside of politics, has a criminal record for driving with no
insurance, has failed in every single post he’s ever been in, plays the race card whenever he fails to get his own way.

[bitontheslide]

they are all grim, let's be honest. Aren't the SNP being investigated by the police for 100's of thousands of pounds that have gone "missing" from the SNP

[Alf]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

For those who don’t know Hamza "Useless" is the prime example of a terrible politician.
He has no life experience outside of politics, has a criminal record for driving with no
insurance, has failed in every single post he’s ever been in, plays the race card whenever he fails to get his own way.

He's the one that's not too keen on White people and even suggests he'd like to see less of them and for White people in certain roles to be replaced purely because of the colour of their skin.

The guy is a racist.

Youtube video

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

For those who don’t know Hamza "Useless" is the prime example of a terrible politician.
He has no life experience outside of politics, has a criminal record for driving with no
insurance, has failed in every single post he’s ever been in, plays the race card whenever he fails to get his own way.

Yes, he was rushing then.

[joeysteele]

What a terrible choice so far to replace her.

[bitontheslide]

It could easily be a sea change in Scottish politics. The snp could be all but wiped out

[Oliver_W]

Who could have seen Nationalists only having dodgy potential leaders...

[Soldier Boy]

There is no replacement that's anywhere near ready for the job. Despite everything, it can't be denied that Wee Nic has 99% been a fearless & very effective politician and despite what she says now, I don't think she expected to be going any time soon... so this is partially Nicola's fault... she's had such a firm grip on party leadership that no replacement has been prepped. It fell apart in record time so now we have this ... ... no real replacement options.

I honestly think they should be looking beyond the "usual faces" to SNP hopefuls/members who have real leadership experience in other fields.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

For those who don’t know Hamza "Useless" is the prime example of a terrible politician.
He has no life experience outside of politics, has a criminal record for driving with no
insurance, has failed in every single post he’s ever been in, plays the race card whenever he fails to get his own way.

I guess he gets the job then

[Oliver_W]

For a piece of legislation which was apparently in the works for years, how could Sturgeon and/or those close to her have such an inaccurate perception as to what the general public thinks? Echo chambers certainly exist (on all sides) but surely it's bordering impossible that she only had one side ringing in her ears, especially as that side is (an admittedly very vocal) minority, in the grand scheme.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

For a piece of legislation which was apparently in the works for years, how could Sturgeon and/or those close to her have such an inaccurate perception as to what the general public thinks? Echo chambers certainly exist (on all sides) but surely it's bordering impossible that she only had one side ringing in her ears, especially as that side is (an admittedly very vocal) minority, in the grand scheme.

she is well aware of the other side, she just thinks they are all bigots

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

For a piece of legislation which was apparently in the works for years, how could Sturgeon and/or those close to her have such an inaccurate perception as to what the general public thinks? Echo chambers certainly exist (on all sides) but surely it's bordering impossible that she only had one side ringing in her ears, especially as that side is (an admittedly very vocal) minority, in the grand scheme.

Didn't she have access to polls showing her the public were very much against it?

[LeatherTrumpet]

I go past a small cottage on my dog walk 3 of their 4 front facing windows have posters in about "NO to self ID"

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Didn't she have access to polls showing her the public were very much against it?

that's why she had to make laws to force her will on the majority

[Soldier Boy]

Nicola would not have fallen on the sword of trans rights or (let's be honest) anything other than Indy... she was banking on it being slapped down by Westminster I think, and then using that "indicator of control" to further the case for independence which - all other things aside - it probably should. It does illustrate something.

So I don't think she thought it was particularly a popular policy - I think she just underestimated how hot a topic it would be at this point in time. Basically, she thought people wouldn't care all that much.

Where it fell apart was in her trying to justify it all on a very public stage after it all fell apart, and that's where she encountered the inherent contradictions and cognitive dissonance involved in trying to properly, openly, and level-headedly discuss the issue of trans rights in today's climate. It's obviouslly immeasurably complex but here's what it boils down to;

1) You can't (CAN NOT, it's logically impossible) introduce policy nuances without an admission that - on some level - there are some fundamental differences between trans women and biological females, and that those differences are relevant and important in some contexts.

2) Your choice is to do the above and be lumped in with people who are genuinely transphobic/homophobic etc., or double down. Inevitably this descends into arguments that tie themselves in knots, confusion, frustration, clear falsehoods based on nothing at all but a hope and a prayer ("What you're worried about doesn't/will never happen you're making it up") and resorting to ad hominem ("I'm right because you're clearly a bigot").


I think #1 was where Nic was destined to end up with this and she did. What surprised me was that she fell into the trappings of #2. A world-leading female politician standing up and calling women TERFs, transphobes and bigots for having genuine concerns surrounding women's safety is a ludicrous situation and could only rightly go one way. It's a terrible shame and a really sad way for her to have ended her political career.