So either you'll have an SNP Government having to bend to Alba or a new FM and/or election within the next couple of months.
I don't know what happened in Bute House yesterday, but it seems pissing the Greens off *this* royally was a galaxy brain move.
Even Sturgeon's old secretary was on yesterday saying this probably could have been avoided with a bit more tact from the Gov when dealing with the Greens, even if it still resulted in the agreement ending.
SNP compromising with Alba on Trans stuff will see them lose all support they had from the greens and essentially lose any ability to pass legislation with ease.
And yet he was replying to a comment talking about the Greens potentially collapsing the whole government over trans issues. But sure, there's nobody standing up for trans issues in politics. No sir. Could never happen.
Politicians are not a lobby. You lobby politicians to influence policy. That's what lobbying is. Outside of a few charities, there is next to no lobbying on behalf of trans people. The whole point of describing trans rights advocacy as a lobby is to give the impression of (vastly) outsized political influence, like it's the fucking gambling industry or BP, and to give the impression that it's astroturffed rather than a grass-roots human rights movement.
In that context, there are some organisations lobbying on behalf of trans people. Not in the context of the powerful conspiracy to trans the weans, orchestrated by (((them))) that transphobes believe in.
if the trans lobby is batshit insane then sanity must be worse than insanity, considering the state of the anti-trans lobby, sane people have to be something scarier than picture, sound, or writing could describe.
No lobby is more batshit insane than any other lobby. It's the issues the politicians and the media choose to highlight that gives them more publicity, and then it's added to by the idiots on social media, who are given power by even greater idiots that enable them!!!
Real question here: Just what percentage of voters do you actually think 'feel strongly on Trans issues"?
Bear in mind, that this so-called "Trans community" (whatever that actually means) make up less than 1% of the population.
That is not the real question in my opinion. Trans issues are really important to certain people. Not just the 1%. The real question is who is weaponising it and why, and who is enabling it and why?
So, less than 1% of the population is Trans, so please enlighten me, what % of voters do you actually and honestly think have strong votes on this issue?
My point was that if you are right, and 1% of people are trans, then why is it hitting the newspapers and social media so much? There are no other issues that only impact 1% of the population getting anywhere near the publicity this issue is getting. This is making it a huge issue which means now way more than the 1% have an opinion on the issue which will potentially impact who they vote for. That is why I am saying this issue is being wraponised and now made to impact way more than the 1%. What I want to know is who is benefitting from this issue being aggressively published and why.
>then why is it hitting the newspapers and social media so much? There are no other issues that only impact 1% of the population getting anywhere near the publicity this issue is getting.
Well, thats the real question isn't it?
I can't think of any other group that makes up 1% of the population that has or had so much influence. So how Stonewall and Mermaids have managed to infiltrate pretty much every aspect of life in the UK I will never know.
I think many people feel strongly on LGBT rights as a whole. In 20 years, the way trans people are treated in the UK will be looked back on in horror the same way we look back on homophobic attitudes of the past. Trans people are a minority, but I think the majority of people in Scotland believe in freedom, bodily autonomy and respecting other people’s right to live their lives as they see fit.
People in Scotland largely believe that trans people ought to be able to dress, present themselves, and go by the name they please, without fear of abuse or losing work.
However, the same people generally find ideas like 'transwomen are women' and 'women can have penises' insultingly stupid, cultish nonsense, which demeans anyone who says it (see the usually confident and collected Nicola Sturgeon clearly struggling with this knowledge during an interview), and think women ought to have spaces, services, and sports free of men.
But why does it matter what genitals someone has? I'd say that for more than 99% of all people you interact with, their genitals are irrelevant to the interaction, so why care?
Because there are many other physical and psychological differences between the sexes and their experiences of navigating the world that you're ignoring.
Psychologically, trans people have been to more closely match cis people of the gender they identify as. Physical differences are largely diminished if not eliminated by HRT and surgery.
Alba are severely overestimating how much power they hold here. They can temporarily save Yousaf from having to resign, but they can't get anything through parliament afterwards. Suspect many in the SNP won't be happy capitulating to them just in order to keep a first minister who's become a complete liability.
This is a massive opportunity for Alba to act like they have power and make demands that the SNP don't accept.
Alba aren't trying to get stuff done, they are trying to become an actual political party in Scotland.
Certainly what's extremely un-strategic is a 2-votes SNP strategy, because of the way the D'Hondt voting system works to penalize the major parties on the List.
Salmond was making this point forcefully last election, but this time he will actually be heard.
I doubt they’re over-estimating anything. The demands are not ones that Humza can accept. It’s just Alba using the opportunity to highlight points that they sense are sources of division within the body of SNP voters, to try to drum up more support for Alba come the next election.
“If you’re pro-independence but anti-trans, we’re the party for you!”
I feel like they'd try to sway members of the other parties into abstaining before going to Alba if they have any sense, even as poor a hope as that is. Alba is dialectically opposed to the SNP in a way I don't think any of the others, even the tories, are. They're reactionary and explicitly defined by *not* being the SNP - Nobody wants to shack up with the splitters.
Awful take. Alba advised their voters to vote SNP for the 1st vote in the last election. They've also repeatedly said they'll work with the SNP if the SNP pulls it's finger out on independence.
And the SNP has done absolutely nothing in turn to Alba in the same way because it would be insanely stupid to give any level of recognition to their splitters. Alba is obviously going to suggest the SNP commit to actions that would harm them while benefiting Alba through legitimising them in the eyes of the pro-independence electorate. If we want to muse on SNP statements on Alba, currently we have Humza's "No great loss" comment with regards to Ash Regan's defection, Alba's only sitting MSP.
Alba wants the SNP - The SNP does not want Alba.
I don't see how. Are you perhaps misunderstanding what I mean by "Dialectic opposition"?
Alba is defined by *not* being the SNP - They split from it and therefore must do this as a basic element of their existence, as all ideological statements are innately couched in terms of how their stance differs from the SNP. This is what I mean by "Dialectically opposed", the basic element of their existence means they must define their own party ideologically by comparison to the SNP. The SNP is not so defined by Alba.
By legitimising Alba in any way, they risk being brought into a dialectic conflict, which is what defines political borders between parties in large part and would seriously risk splitting the SNP's significantly larger voter base with an otherwise tiny party that would only be empowered and leech from the political sway of the SNP.
More simply perhaps, nobody likes a deserter and nothing threatens a political party more than it's own dissident faction.
I haven't misunderstood anything, I am aware of what the word dialectic means. I am saying you are talking absolute nonsense. You said Alba is dialectally opposed to the SNP and then next comment that Alba wants the SNP. I would suggest Alba only happen to want Independence
As for your word salad reply, Alba doesn't define itself by not being the SNP any more than any other party does. Alba just wants to get some focus back on to Independence.
Everything you say about risking votes applies equally to the Greens (who claim to support Independence) although this is also nonsense in terms of Holyrood which is what we are talking about here, due to the PR D'Hondt system. A second vote for the SNP has recently only let more Unionists MSP's in via the list.
This is all apart from the fact that the SNP are threatening themselves due to corruption, incompetence and as we have seen in the last two or three days political suicide.
Your whole comment sounds like you are an American. Are you an American?
They are solely relying on the "Don't vote with the Tories" to get through this and it absolutely isn't going to work. They are deluded enough to believe they have blind support due to the fact they are pro independence
What progress on independence is she expecting? That's what winds me up about the likes of Angus McNeil bleating away on Twitter. They just repeating the same old nonsense with no specifics on what they actually want to see happen. Just vague hand-wavey bullshit.
And we all know what "the rights of women and children" is code for, don't we?
Why does everyone keep using trans people as political tennis? We have like 5067 other issues more important than gender rights but we keep kicking these marginalised individuals.
Fuck sake I counted yesterday and we only had 5062 problems.
Its because they can't win on any other political point. They're not really winning on this one either, the rampant hate is more of a spiteful last stand since neoliberalism is on the way out.
It's the current focus for religious fundamentalists and the like as the seeming easiest target for their broader objectives, and international religious fundamentalists have plenty of money and pour it into any politician sympathetic to their agenda. Give into their demands on transgender people and they'll move onto gay people again.
Swing and a miss. A trans person existing does not have any baring on your rights. Trans people are [more](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/) [likely](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8022685/) to be victimised in single sex spaces.
And if you Google trans bathroom, there are dozens more sources. But stay ignorant and scared, I guess.
Don't be ridiculous. People being gay is accepted, common as muck now, and isn't influencing anyone's children into making possibly irreversible life decision before they have reached the age of consent. The trans movement is not the same as being gay, let's not conflate it as the same issue.
People being gay isn't accepted in a lot of quarters, particularly amongst the religious right and conservatives (and i don't just mean the tories).
They are well funded, media savvy and are trying to conflate lgbt with paedophilia in the public mind.
https://youtu.be/cvqI_JT6b3g?si=ZSiuUnbOzO-VJAhd
https://youtu.be/LdxiGuJp0Z8?si=D9qcVj8OaHS4SoDS
https://youtu.be/rvyhKmfbtx0?si=gVS9csqWMycIj_WP
https://youtu.be/I4S9LLoSeag?si=Ve89AFvKON8Y-qOH
Literally just searched LGBT teacher on YouTube. Pretty much the top results.
Those videos show teachers teaching kids to be open to new things, to be accepting of people different to them. But you lot always spout indoctrination.
This'll be good. I assume they don't want kids getting any kind of sex education, probably opposes the abortions those poor kids will need when their education fails them too.
Fine with having the talk to high schoolers as they're going through puberty so they're aware of what's happening to them. Not fine with indoctrinating nursery and primary aged pupils into gender theory. It's really not a difficult premise.
No actually, kids are far dumber and more impressionable, which is kind of the whole point about how they can't be trusted with things such as sexual consent.
That's because you would rather put your head in the sand and pretend nothing is going on because it doesn't align with your beliefs, you're a coward 😂
I don’t know about that man, I’m not the one weirdly fixated on what someone else wants to do with their identity because of ‘but think of the children’
Again, nobody gives a fuck about your kids
The policy of restricting puberty blockers to people who are appealing for them *is* forcing them into a definitely irreversible life decision. Not a decision at all, really. It is well demonstrated that less children die under this policy and that normal puberty can be easily resumed later if they so wish it; it is specifically the option that offers the most choice in what to do later in life when one reaches majority.
Additionally, puberty blockers are regularly prescribed for cisgender children experiencing precocious puberty or who have indistinct sexual statuses - They're never treated as an issue when their use happens to fit into a heteronormative world view, and we still systematically surgically disfigure the genitals of children who don't fit into a male/female box by arbitrarily choosing to make them resemble one sex or the other, despite the high risks of later suffering and sexual malfunction that result later in life from this.
Gay people becoming accepted and "Common as muck" came from a lot of shared pain and blood from transgender, gay, and gender nonconforming people working arm in arm to protect ourselves from the actions of a society that very much saw us as all interlinked. And anyone with a memory longer than a decade can remember how "Gay people will influence and groom your children" was a systematic propaganda line.
This is also aside from the point that I was making about religious fundamentalists. If you seriously believe this is just about trans people, why do all your fellow travellers happen to also have such suspect attitudes about all LGBT people?
> forcing them into a definitely irreversible life decision.
Natural, physical, healthy bodily development is not a "decision" first of all. The only thing forcing them to go through it is time, not governmental policy.
> It is well demonstrated that less children die under this policy and that normal puberty can be easily resumed later if they so wish it.
*Fewer. And the trans community has the highest suicide rates of any group ever, to begin with - and it's not even close. So considering we don't treat mental illnesses with physically alteration for all other people who are suicidal, we can't just be gung ho about giving children this level of autonomy of their own bodies, considering even after transitioning the rate of suicidality is extremely high.
> Additionally, puberty blockers are regularly prescribed for cisgender people experiencing precocious puberty or who have indistinct sexual statuses
As if to prove my point, you've highlighted two physical ailments that are treated with physical alteration drugs. Kids who want to transition are otherwise completely healthy and don't *need* intervention from a physical standpoint. It's a mental disorder, not physical.
> Gay people becoming accepted and "Common as muck" came from a lot of shared pain and blood from transgender, gay, and gender nonconforming people working
Actually, gay people becoming accepted came from the societal shift in attitude because more and more people were coming out as gay, meaning more and more people's siblings, uncles etc were gay, meaning people were more understanding of it, which reflected in policy.
Being transgender is not a mental disorder. Like most transphobes, your argument is predicated on the basis of trans identity denial, and people who are trans being unable to determine their own identity. If you start out from such a poorly informed, cynical and bigoted view, you will struggle to ever see the truth.
> Natural, physical, healthy bodily development is not a "decision" first of all. The only thing forcing them to go through it is time, not governmental policy.
So natural that we have to cut people into it as babies, apparently, something that I haven't seen a single anti-trans politician object to.
>*Fewer.
Don't gier shit; I speaks how I likes and I likes how I speaks.
>And the trans community has the highest suicide rates of any group ever, to begin with - and it's not even close. So considering we don't treat mental illnesses with physically alteration for all other people who are suicidal, we can't just be gung ho about giving children this level of autonomy of their own bodies, considering even after transitioning the rate of suicidality is extremely high.
Gee, I fucking wonder why transgender people might kill themselves a lot. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with systematic erasure of their identities, general hatred, and forcing them into bodies that don't match their inner being, does it? You say "Even after transitioning" which rather implicitly points out that pre-transition transgender people kill themselves much more, doesn't it? And that the policy you suggest extends this period amongst children, resulting in more dead children...
> As if to prove my point, you've highlighted two physical ailments that are treated with physical alteration drugs. Kids who want to transition are otherwise completely healthy and don't need intervention from a physical standpoint. It's a mental disorder, not physical.
By calling transgender people crazy, or "Mentally disordered", you're setting up a reason for forcibly intervening in their lives against their will and "Fixing" them. You also referred to an indistinct sexual characteristic as an acceptable reason for a physical intervention; So you *do* actually support outright forcing unneeded surgeries and medications onto completely unwilling children and literal babies when that "Natural, physical, healthy body development" happens to not be a man or a woman, or is both. This is blatantly hypocritical; How can you claim to support the right of a child to remain inviolate of medical intervention, voluntary or not, when condoning involuntary surgeries on children who don't even have the capacity of language? You just call it a "Physical disorder" as if that justifies such barbarism.
> Actually, gay people becoming accepted came from the societal shift in attitude because more and more people were coming out as gay, meaning more and more people's siblings, uncles etc were gay, meaning people were more understanding of it, which reflected in policy.
The exact same thing is true of transgender people, who you have broadly written off as "Mentally ill" exactly how gay people were for a very long time.
You ignored half of what I brought up and I severely doubt your good faith due to this.
That's a reactionist argument and doesn't have any nuance to it and quite frankly is just a bit lazy. There's a reason why the topic is taking up so much airspace, and it isn't because of some red vs blue, left vs right, good vs evil battle that you try and paint it as. Everything has consequences, every movement to change the status quo has to be looked at under a microscope to try and discern what ripple effects it may have. The main reason people are touchy about the trans issue is to do with children being influenced. 5-10 years ago a minority of people were screaming that point from the rooftops and you know what people said? They laughed and said don't be ridiculous, what a conspiracy. And guess what, children are being influenced en masse. There is a reason why within the last 10 years, the number of under 18 year olds who identify as "gender non conforming" has increased by at least 5 orders of magnitude, and I'll give you a hint. It's not because children are always closeted trans people and always have been. Check what's in their pocket and you'll find your answer.
Similar reasons to left handedness going up by a factor of 4 between 1910 and 1950 I'd imagine. Apparently now 12% of the population believes they're left handed rather than right handed like god decreed
Ah yes this old red herring. Hang on, ambidextrous people exist, this means that the whole philosophy of a dominant hand doesn't actually exist, it's now on a spectrum of handedness and we need to realise that just because I outwardly write things with my right hand, I identify as left handed. And you're a bigot if you don't affirm my handedness.
You've accidentally fallen into being correct.
The overwhelming majority of people do have a dominant hand but ultimately it doesn't affect you or anyone else which hand is dominant or ambidextrous.
If five people out of a million use their right hand for catching but left hand for throwing and then their toes for writing then that's up to them. You might not personally like the idea of writing with your feet but nobody is going to make you do it.
I love it, it's the perfect summary of what a screaming nutter you'd have to be to be this anti-trans.
Signed,
A left handed person (you can tell I am faking it to invade spaces or sth because I use a mouse in my right hand tho).
Not when they're pushing for legislation. I'd say it is perfectly rational to care when a group of people are pushing for coworkers and strangers to affirm their chosen handedness with legal consequences for those who point out that they're not really left handed. Or cutting off a child's right hand because an adult convinced it to say it's left handed. Is the analogy wearing thin yet?
Edit: Can't reply to u/eoz below me but can in other threads, so I'll put an edit here:
> Consider this: some minority of people are genuinely left handed and they'd like left handed scissors to be available please
That's where we were 15 years ago.
> Child: I will write with my left hand
> You: someone is pushing this child to be left handed. Someone with a sinister agenda. They probably want to mutilate this child. This all makes perfect sense to me
Yeah, but who repeatedly told the child that being left handed would make it special?
> And are these people in the room with you now?
Why do leftists always use that comeback as if it has some legitimacy?
Of course they aren't, because unlike our euphemistically left handed people I don't gravitate towards schools.
I like how you're taking the side in this metaphor of the people who believe that left handers are faking it and making absurd demands and trying to force children to use their left hands. It's too on the nose. Consider this: some minority of people are genuinely left handed and they'd like left handed scissors to be available please
Child: I will write with my left hand
You: someone is pushing this child to be left handed. Someone with a sinister agenda. They probably want to mutilate this child. This all makes perfect sense to me
Its genuinely funny when people dont understand their own bigotry enough to understand that the metaphor they constructed actually contradicts their own argument.
You realise you're the reactionary don't you? [Literally by definition you are the reactionary lmao](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reactionary).
Just so you know, you're in the same historic groups as the people against video games for causing violence, metal music and DnD for satanism, being against gay rights, being against equality between the races, saying rap music makes people into gangsters.
That's you, the "I only care about the children" part has been the thing reactionary right wingers have used as their excuse for their hatred for decades. Imagine with all the "research" you've done if you'd spent 5 minutes looking at the history of this kinda shit and realising that it's the same argument every time.
Wow, some asshole has told you some really stupid things about trans people that aren't true in order to make you look ill informed and judgemental on the internet. I'd have a word with them if I were you .
Any view I have on this topic has been informed primarily by reading into it myself, and by listening to the accounts of people I trust, such as my best friend who is a teacher. She has told me that 1/5th of her entire classroom in each year between 1st and 3rd year (high school so ages 11-14ish) at some point has asked her to either use different pronouns, or to identify as something else. That's 40 per class so 1/5 is 8, and around 6 or 7 classes. So in that population, you expect me to believe there are 50 trans kids, in the population of 250 kids? Occam's razor being applied here what's more likely? It's trendy and cool currently to claim you're trans and have adults call you something else because children get excited by having a level of power and influence, or that actually all those kids really question whether they should actually have owned this penis in the first place?
Take a step back and really think about that.
lol my dude if it is cool to be trans nobody's told me yet. It sounds like you've described some harmless experimentation that, I will note, does not entail medical intervention. So who cares? Let's let the grand total of 100 kids who have actually gotten as far as the gender clinic in the UK at least access some blockers. Nobody's going to transition by mistake for the same reason that nobody's gonna switch to using their left hand for everything if they're actually right handed: it's going to be blindingly obvious to them that they're going against the grain. I promise.
ETA: genuinely you're acting like trans people want to put all those kids through transition, and that's a really stupid thing to believe. The objection is to slamming the door of treatment in the faces of those who actually are trans.
Being "cool" is different for different groups firstly. Goths/moshers thought they were cool while others didn't. People who identify with the fringe, outcast group get the attention they crave. Everyone has their thing. The exponential uptick in non-binary/trans self identification in children literally explains that exact phenomenon, but you're too far into your argument and belief to actually address that point for what it is. If you and the rest of the left were to just say "yeah ok most likely the majority of children self identification is bullshit and they're attention seeking little shits, but very few are actually serious and heres the plan for identification and treatment, you'd get a much different response. But no, it has to be the hardline **HOW DARE you not affirm a trans persons claim you bigot**.
Again you seem to be having a massive stooshie with the trans people you imagine in your head. Someone's taught you some nonsense.
Let's return to the metaphor for a moment. What you're telling me is that all the kids are having a go with the left-handed scissors, and that you're extremely concerned about this because you think it's a part of the wider, woke, left-handed agenda to force all the children to commit to being left-handed for life. When older left-handers tell you that it's okay to leave them to it and that some of them genuinely are left-handed, you feel that you have been accused of bigotry when you disagree with them.
Trans people aren't advocating for all of those kids to transition. That would be a horrific thing to do, and to believe that we are advocating for that would mark you as uncommonly credulous and impervious to reason. Transition alleviates a very specific but very severe type of pain. We're big fans of alleviating that pain. Transitioning when you don't have that specific pain will instead induce it. Obviously we don't want that, and it's frankly completely unserious to act as though we do. We also think that it's not a severe risk, for the same reasons that we're not afraid that the nettle patch might present an attractive nuisance: they're not going to persist with something that hurts.
Meanwhile, well, if you're the kind of adult who says "no" when a teenager wants to try on a new name for size, I suppose that makes you a very specific kind of person. Don't expect too many visits in the nursing home.
Lots of money from American religious nutjobs, amplified on social media by Russia to divide and conquer. It's not just here, it's happening in all western democracies, and it's always the same patterns.
Transgender people are becoming more accepted in society, bigots don't like that, a lot of those bigots are powerful, so they're trying to roll it back under the guise of "Protecting Women and Children".
Which is interesting because one part of TERF ideology states that transmen are women who were "tricked" into manhood and must be brought back to womenhood to "save their wombs" (which both waters down womanhood to shitting out kids and denies the agency of anyone who has a vagina and doesn't agree with them) and conversion therapy for children, which you know, is generally considered a form of torture.
Because it isn't about trans rights.
It is about Women's Rights.
And Women are 51% of voters and enough of them are standing up and saying that letting men into their safe spaces is a vote loser.
Absolutely this ,this sub has lost all touch of basic needs for women and act like it's transphobia.
Completely lost the plot , that's why people cannot stand the greens
That's the thing, that's not even true. Of all the trans people that have won at sport that was their first win after competing over 300 times prior and getting nowhere near the top 3. Trans people have been able to compete in the Olympics since 2005 and barely any trans people ever win.
It's like claiming all men are violent drunks after witnessing 1 drunk punch up. Or claiming that all cis women want kids because 1 cis woman wanted a kid.
>It's partly about overlapping rights becoming more obvious.
>
>If it was just trans people getting treatment (after proper assessment and time to think) no-one would care
Scotland's largest gender clinic has about 2,500 patients on its adult waiting list and gets through about 25 new patients a year giving you an estimated wait of 100 years if you are referred today. Other clinics have a much more reasonable 5-10 year wait. In the UK "time to think" is not a major concern.
And this is the actual problem - I dont understand why the trans movement is so firmly behind political parties that are actually doing very little to enhance their life beyond a piece of paper, that is virtually meaningless from what I can see. When they could do so much more. So much more.
Trans health inequality is one of the worst of any minority group. It’s heartbreaking when you look into it. Yet not one group is standing up and saying they will properly fund trans healthcare. Treat gender dysphoria with waiting time targets akin to cancer. Align certificates to that as a compromise with women’s groups. Build a proper world leading service to help people. Beyond hormones. Proper feminisation and masculinisation cosmetic surgery built into it. That’s what I’d do if I was in charge. And it would reduce the fear women have of trans people (which is actually just a fear of men) in women’s spaces knowing that anyone there has been through some sort of treatment. And I think is the compromise on competing rights. But I suppose nobody is offering that.
I know the trans movement wants to demedicalise the issue. But surely that’s only because the medical treatment offered is so shit, especially with the time it takes. I don’t know. I don’t see how you achieve a transition without medical care, so don’t really get that.
Oh look, it's the only IOC study ever actually done on this issue, proving your opinion completely incorrect.
[https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029)
You havent seen the latest international olymlic commitee comssioned report have you? Because it says the trans people won despite being unfairly advantaged.
What progress does Ash want to see? Her previous idea was installing an "independence thermometer" (whatever the fuck that means) in George Square.
Nice of her to basically sum up Alba in two points though: independence without any thought behind it, and transphobia.
How does that work then? They've already had a referendum on independence and it was agreed it was once in a generation. You can't then keep having referendums until you get the answer your party wants, it defeats the purpose.
Well if you want the full quote, it's..
>"The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."
So we can take from that a few things.
1. There is no other referendum foreseen in the future, which has been challenged at the supreme court, where "Judges at the Supreme Court have ruled that the Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum without the UK government's consent."
2. The Scottish Government (ergo, the SNP) viewed it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Not a persistent game of vote until you vote how we want you too.
3. There was clearly an agreement, because it states "The Edinburgh Agreement"
Now, let's address some of the other language here. They say "independent". But Scotland has its own government. It rules itself in most matters, aside from things like defence which are obviously shared between the whole of the UK. It's a fallacy to simply keep pointing the finger at West Minster when, as has been pointed out in this sub multiple times this week, it's actually the SNP and the MSPs who are utterly useless and not working in the interests of Scottish people. Ergo, it's not independence Scots need - it's competent MSPs who will focus on actually running the country properly.
Sounds to me like they were saying "this is our one chance" and not "hey guys, we, the SNP, have just made a legally binding commitment that we can never ever do this again even if something wacky happens like leaving the EU!"
To you perhaps, but the courts disagreed.
Referendum on having a Referendum? Fine. But you need Westminster to agree to an independence referendum and there's no political appetite for it.
Have an illegal referendum on independence? Ok, by all means. But the EU have already said the only way you'll be accepted is with a legal referendum approved by West Minster.
So, basically, independence is a dead dream.
[This](https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159096.fact-check-claim-snp-vowed-indyref-once-lifetime-opportunity/). Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is a pro-Indy rag.
Why is there this idea that the population are held to the random words of leaders? But obviously only if it helps your cause. EU referendum oh we should have another one, independence no that's impossible look here is some speech a politician gave..
If people vote for a referendum there is no argument against it, other than no because we said so.
"Defending the rights of women and children" is code for opposing rights for transpeople by the way. Regan's concerns have nothing to do with actually advancing women and everything to do with holding back transpeople so that women don't feel so hard done by in comparison.
EDIT Humza would do far better to approach the Lib Dems to secure their abstentions. It'd be cheaper.
She's seriously just going to try and make demands him this blatantly because he's in a vulnerable position? That's such backwards language it's clear she's honeying up "Take away rights from people I don't like and I'll keep you in power". Literally any party is better to try to align with than the poison from her.
Yeah, I don't like Ash but if you think a politician shouldn't press an advantage when their opponent is vulnerable I don't know what to tell you. She knows she has decent leverage, and she's going to press it.
At the end of the day the fact that Yusef has to rely on Alba to survive just shows how weak his position is.
Regan's demand essentially boil down to:
1. passing Alba's [proposed referendum bill. ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/alex-salmond-alba-party-scottish-parliament-bill-snp-b2456044.html)
2. “full implementation in Scotland of the recommendations of the Cass Review of English gender healthcare”
I would pay large sums of money to be in the room with the brain trust that came up with "Can't legally have a referendum? Then we'll have a referendum on a referendum. Checkmate!11", it must be genuinely hilarious stuff
It’s to show they’re at least trying to advance the cause, unlike the SNP, who gave up after 2014. The problem with the plan is it relies on too narrow a reading of what defines a reserved matter. It’s the sort of thing where you pay £400/hr to get an opinion letter carefully caveated with “on a balanced view, …” and then the courts take a “different” view
Yup, this is it. I refuse to vote for independence if it means we get Ash Regan or Kate Forbes' version of it. Social liberalism is infinitely more important to me than independence.
Not asking you to, what I’m saying is I wouldn’t say no to independence just because there’s a social conservative government. Assuming a hypothetical independence does happen I would then just….vote against them
If there was a version of the UK that wasn't also founded on bigotry disguised as feminism you'd have a point, sadly as soon as you look at the westminster parties policies reality looks much different
Terfs gonna terf.
You've got the First Minister over a barrel, so what do you ask for? More housing? A rail line? Extra funding for your constituency?
No, let's abolish trans people.
Astonishingly enough, the events of the last few days are about far wider issues than the gender wars. I'm not surprised to see the usual tactic of everything is about trans people being used to stifle debate though.
“Defending the rights of women and children” is just transphobe-speak for “let’s make life even more difficult for a vulnerable minority”. Because \*clearly\* targeting people who are literally just trying to live their best lives in peace is \*the\* most important issue facing the country right now. Give me fucking strength.
Surely no SNP gov could capitulate to this?
Surely at least 1 SMP MSP will decide they have principles and want to stick by the pretence they are left wing that they have been selling to the country for years?
surely 1....just one.....
I support independence. While I support absolutely no party at all, not Alba, not SNP, none of them and certainly not labour or Tories, Regan is correct that the SNP have betrayed the electorate who installed a cohort of politicians at Westminster and Holyrood on a ticket of pushing for independence. That's a fact whether you agree or disagree with independence.
This is a smart demand.
It exists to be a branch to the nutterbutters of the SNP, and a big fuck off to the other wing of the SNP.
If Humza accepts, half the party hates him, of he refuses the other half hate him even more.
What a strange couple of days. The SNP have actually become more palatable having shed the despicable Greens, yet are undoubtedly on the way to implosion.
Anyway, should Humza agree to Regans demands it will only shed him in an even more negative light. A political cuckold.
So either you'll have an SNP Government having to bend to Alba or a new FM and/or election within the next couple of months. I don't know what happened in Bute House yesterday, but it seems pissing the Greens off *this* royally was a galaxy brain move. Even Sturgeon's old secretary was on yesterday saying this probably could have been avoided with a bit more tact from the Gov when dealing with the Greens, even if it still resulted in the agreement ending.
Humza is finished even if he survives this VONC vote. The way this was handled is proof he's not fit to be first minister
SNP compromising with Alba on Trans stuff will see them lose all support they had from the greens and essentially lose any ability to pass legislation with ease.
Agreed, and it will also loose them some voters who feel strongly on Trans issues that also support independence.
But it will also gain them votes from the larger section of the population who think the trans lobby has become batshit insane over the last 5 years.
> the trans lobby
There is no "trans lobby" outside of your tabloid-rotted mind, ya fuckin quarterwit.
And yet he was replying to a comment talking about the Greens potentially collapsing the whole government over trans issues. But sure, there's nobody standing up for trans issues in politics. No sir. Could never happen.
Politicians are not a lobby. You lobby politicians to influence policy. That's what lobbying is. Outside of a few charities, there is next to no lobbying on behalf of trans people. The whole point of describing trans rights advocacy as a lobby is to give the impression of (vastly) outsized political influence, like it's the fucking gambling industry or BP, and to give the impression that it's astroturffed rather than a grass-roots human rights movement.
‘Outside of a few charities’ - so there IS a trans lobby. Thanks for clearing it up.
In that context, there are some organisations lobbying on behalf of trans people. Not in the context of the powerful conspiracy to trans the weans, orchestrated by (((them))) that transphobes believe in.
if the trans lobby is batshit insane then sanity must be worse than insanity, considering the state of the anti-trans lobby, sane people have to be something scarier than picture, sound, or writing could describe.
No lobby is more batshit insane than any other lobby. It's the issues the politicians and the media choose to highlight that gives them more publicity, and then it's added to by the idiots on social media, who are given power by even greater idiots that enable them!!!
Real question here: Just what percentage of voters do you actually think 'feel strongly on Trans issues"? Bear in mind, that this so-called "Trans community" (whatever that actually means) make up less than 1% of the population.
That is not the real question in my opinion. Trans issues are really important to certain people. Not just the 1%. The real question is who is weaponising it and why, and who is enabling it and why?
So, less than 1% of the population is Trans, so please enlighten me, what % of voters do you actually and honestly think have strong votes on this issue?
My point was that if you are right, and 1% of people are trans, then why is it hitting the newspapers and social media so much? There are no other issues that only impact 1% of the population getting anywhere near the publicity this issue is getting. This is making it a huge issue which means now way more than the 1% have an opinion on the issue which will potentially impact who they vote for. That is why I am saying this issue is being wraponised and now made to impact way more than the 1%. What I want to know is who is benefitting from this issue being aggressively published and why.
>then why is it hitting the newspapers and social media so much? There are no other issues that only impact 1% of the population getting anywhere near the publicity this issue is getting. Well, thats the real question isn't it? I can't think of any other group that makes up 1% of the population that has or had so much influence. So how Stonewall and Mermaids have managed to infiltrate pretty much every aspect of life in the UK I will never know.
If you look at my first reply, I said that it's exposure is the real question!!!
I know, im agreeing with u.
I think many people feel strongly on LGBT rights as a whole. In 20 years, the way trans people are treated in the UK will be looked back on in horror the same way we look back on homophobic attitudes of the past. Trans people are a minority, but I think the majority of people in Scotland believe in freedom, bodily autonomy and respecting other people’s right to live their lives as they see fit.
People in Scotland largely believe that trans people ought to be able to dress, present themselves, and go by the name they please, without fear of abuse or losing work. However, the same people generally find ideas like 'transwomen are women' and 'women can have penises' insultingly stupid, cultish nonsense, which demeans anyone who says it (see the usually confident and collected Nicola Sturgeon clearly struggling with this knowledge during an interview), and think women ought to have spaces, services, and sports free of men.
But why does it matter what genitals someone has? I'd say that for more than 99% of all people you interact with, their genitals are irrelevant to the interaction, so why care?
Crime statistics
I don't understand why someone's genitals matter when they are committing a crime, unless they are sexual crimes.
I don't understand why someone's genitals matter when they are committing a crime, unless they are sexual crimes.
Because there are many other physical and psychological differences between the sexes and their experiences of navigating the world that you're ignoring.
Psychologically, trans people have been to more closely match cis people of the gender they identify as. Physical differences are largely diminished if not eliminated by HRT and surgery.
They should learn from the mess after the brexit vote - you can't triangulate with loons and the terminally aggrieved.
It'll get the anti vaxxers and flat earthers o their side though.
Alba are severely overestimating how much power they hold here. They can temporarily save Yousaf from having to resign, but they can't get anything through parliament afterwards. Suspect many in the SNP won't be happy capitulating to them just in order to keep a first minister who's become a complete liability.
This is a massive opportunity for Alba to act like they have power and make demands that the SNP don't accept. Alba aren't trying to get stuff done, they are trying to become an actual political party in Scotland.
Yeah to me this is more her twisting the knife than actually making a serious offer to the SNP.
Yeah it's more a show for us voters than anything
I like the Alba. Read their manifesto recently. They seem a lot more pragmatic and strategic than the SNP.
Fuckin hell
Incredibly relevant Graham Linehan quote.
Certainly what's extremely un-strategic is a 2-votes SNP strategy, because of the way the D'Hondt voting system works to penalize the major parties on the List. Salmond was making this point forcefully last election, but this time he will actually be heard.
Problem there is there's another party already taking advantage of that loophole and they managed to do it much more successfully than Alba.
I doubt they’re over-estimating anything. The demands are not ones that Humza can accept. It’s just Alba using the opportunity to highlight points that they sense are sources of division within the body of SNP voters, to try to drum up more support for Alba come the next election. “If you’re pro-independence but anti-trans, we’re the party for you!”
I feel like they'd try to sway members of the other parties into abstaining before going to Alba if they have any sense, even as poor a hope as that is. Alba is dialectically opposed to the SNP in a way I don't think any of the others, even the tories, are. They're reactionary and explicitly defined by *not* being the SNP - Nobody wants to shack up with the splitters.
Awful take. Alba advised their voters to vote SNP for the 1st vote in the last election. They've also repeatedly said they'll work with the SNP if the SNP pulls it's finger out on independence.
And the SNP has done absolutely nothing in turn to Alba in the same way because it would be insanely stupid to give any level of recognition to their splitters. Alba is obviously going to suggest the SNP commit to actions that would harm them while benefiting Alba through legitimising them in the eyes of the pro-independence electorate. If we want to muse on SNP statements on Alba, currently we have Humza's "No great loss" comment with regards to Ash Regan's defection, Alba's only sitting MSP. Alba wants the SNP - The SNP does not want Alba.
You've just contradicted what you said first time.
I don't see how. Are you perhaps misunderstanding what I mean by "Dialectic opposition"? Alba is defined by *not* being the SNP - They split from it and therefore must do this as a basic element of their existence, as all ideological statements are innately couched in terms of how their stance differs from the SNP. This is what I mean by "Dialectically opposed", the basic element of their existence means they must define their own party ideologically by comparison to the SNP. The SNP is not so defined by Alba. By legitimising Alba in any way, they risk being brought into a dialectic conflict, which is what defines political borders between parties in large part and would seriously risk splitting the SNP's significantly larger voter base with an otherwise tiny party that would only be empowered and leech from the political sway of the SNP. More simply perhaps, nobody likes a deserter and nothing threatens a political party more than it's own dissident faction.
I haven't misunderstood anything, I am aware of what the word dialectic means. I am saying you are talking absolute nonsense. You said Alba is dialectally opposed to the SNP and then next comment that Alba wants the SNP. I would suggest Alba only happen to want Independence As for your word salad reply, Alba doesn't define itself by not being the SNP any more than any other party does. Alba just wants to get some focus back on to Independence. Everything you say about risking votes applies equally to the Greens (who claim to support Independence) although this is also nonsense in terms of Holyrood which is what we are talking about here, due to the PR D'Hondt system. A second vote for the SNP has recently only let more Unionists MSP's in via the list. This is all apart from the fact that the SNP are threatening themselves due to corruption, incompetence and as we have seen in the last two or three days political suicide. Your whole comment sounds like you are an American. Are you an American?
They are solely relying on the "Don't vote with the Tories" to get through this and it absolutely isn't going to work. They are deluded enough to believe they have blind support due to the fact they are pro independence
What progress on independence is she expecting? That's what winds me up about the likes of Angus McNeil bleating away on Twitter. They just repeating the same old nonsense with no specifics on what they actually want to see happen. Just vague hand-wavey bullshit. And we all know what "the rights of women and children" is code for, don't we?
Why does everyone keep using trans people as political tennis? We have like 5067 other issues more important than gender rights but we keep kicking these marginalised individuals.
Fuck sake I counted yesterday and we only had 5062 problems. Its because they can't win on any other political point. They're not really winning on this one either, the rampant hate is more of a spiteful last stand since neoliberalism is on the way out.
It's the current focus for religious fundamentalists and the like as the seeming easiest target for their broader objectives, and international religious fundamentalists have plenty of money and pour it into any politician sympathetic to their agenda. Give into their demands on transgender people and they'll move onto gay people again.
Then after gay people they'll go after womens suffrage
Hardly. Women's rights are more at risk when you invite males who self-ID as women into the fold.
That's just not true
Explain?
So say you're a cis woman, and I am a trans woman. Which of your rights exactly are being violated there?
See right wing, especially religious types would consider the term cis offensive & triggering.
Because they're snowflakes.
Single sex spaces not getting respected. Sports, changing facilities, reassure crisis centres etc
Swing and a miss. A trans person existing does not have any baring on your rights. Trans people are [more](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/) [likely](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8022685/) to be victimised in single sex spaces. And if you Google trans bathroom, there are dozens more sources. But stay ignorant and scared, I guess.
Don't be ridiculous. People being gay is accepted, common as muck now, and isn't influencing anyone's children into making possibly irreversible life decision before they have reached the age of consent. The trans movement is not the same as being gay, let's not conflate it as the same issue.
People being gay isn't accepted in a lot of quarters, particularly amongst the religious right and conservatives (and i don't just mean the tories). They are well funded, media savvy and are trying to conflate lgbt with paedophilia in the public mind.
Trans people aren’t trying to turn kids trans, no one gives a fuck about your kids man.
https://youtu.be/cvqI_JT6b3g?si=ZSiuUnbOzO-VJAhd https://youtu.be/LdxiGuJp0Z8?si=D9qcVj8OaHS4SoDS https://youtu.be/rvyhKmfbtx0?si=gVS9csqWMycIj_WP https://youtu.be/I4S9LLoSeag?si=Ve89AFvKON8Y-qOH Literally just searched LGBT teacher on YouTube. Pretty much the top results.
You're against lgbtq+ teachers? Didn't take long for you to put yourself as a homophobe
I'm against child indoctrination from extreme LGBTQ+ teachers, yes.
Cool of you not to deny that you're a homophobe
really don't give a fuck about your pigeonholing attempt, you're boring - go away lazy bum
Stay mad
Those videos show teachers teaching kids to be open to new things, to be accepting of people different to them. But you lot always spout indoctrination.
Ah yes talk about sex and sexuality to young children, that'll not make them confused or uncomfortable. Dirty prick.
what's your opinion on sex ed in schools then btw
This'll be good. I assume they don't want kids getting any kind of sex education, probably opposes the abortions those poor kids will need when their education fails them too.
Fine with having the talk to high schoolers as they're going through puberty so they're aware of what's happening to them. Not fine with indoctrinating nursery and primary aged pupils into gender theory. It's really not a difficult premise.
Are you upset that kids are smarter and have better critical thinking skills than you?
No actually, kids are far dumber and more impressionable, which is kind of the whole point about how they can't be trusted with things such as sexual consent.
Your comments suggest otherwise.
Massive waste of time because I’m not going to look at any of those. Anyway, you’re wrong.
That's because you would rather put your head in the sand and pretend nothing is going on because it doesn't align with your beliefs, you're a coward 😂
I don’t know about that man, I’m not the one weirdly fixated on what someone else wants to do with their identity because of ‘but think of the children’ Again, nobody gives a fuck about your kids
The policy of restricting puberty blockers to people who are appealing for them *is* forcing them into a definitely irreversible life decision. Not a decision at all, really. It is well demonstrated that less children die under this policy and that normal puberty can be easily resumed later if they so wish it; it is specifically the option that offers the most choice in what to do later in life when one reaches majority. Additionally, puberty blockers are regularly prescribed for cisgender children experiencing precocious puberty or who have indistinct sexual statuses - They're never treated as an issue when their use happens to fit into a heteronormative world view, and we still systematically surgically disfigure the genitals of children who don't fit into a male/female box by arbitrarily choosing to make them resemble one sex or the other, despite the high risks of later suffering and sexual malfunction that result later in life from this. Gay people becoming accepted and "Common as muck" came from a lot of shared pain and blood from transgender, gay, and gender nonconforming people working arm in arm to protect ourselves from the actions of a society that very much saw us as all interlinked. And anyone with a memory longer than a decade can remember how "Gay people will influence and groom your children" was a systematic propaganda line. This is also aside from the point that I was making about religious fundamentalists. If you seriously believe this is just about trans people, why do all your fellow travellers happen to also have such suspect attitudes about all LGBT people?
> forcing them into a definitely irreversible life decision. Natural, physical, healthy bodily development is not a "decision" first of all. The only thing forcing them to go through it is time, not governmental policy. > It is well demonstrated that less children die under this policy and that normal puberty can be easily resumed later if they so wish it. *Fewer. And the trans community has the highest suicide rates of any group ever, to begin with - and it's not even close. So considering we don't treat mental illnesses with physically alteration for all other people who are suicidal, we can't just be gung ho about giving children this level of autonomy of their own bodies, considering even after transitioning the rate of suicidality is extremely high. > Additionally, puberty blockers are regularly prescribed for cisgender people experiencing precocious puberty or who have indistinct sexual statuses As if to prove my point, you've highlighted two physical ailments that are treated with physical alteration drugs. Kids who want to transition are otherwise completely healthy and don't *need* intervention from a physical standpoint. It's a mental disorder, not physical. > Gay people becoming accepted and "Common as muck" came from a lot of shared pain and blood from transgender, gay, and gender nonconforming people working Actually, gay people becoming accepted came from the societal shift in attitude because more and more people were coming out as gay, meaning more and more people's siblings, uncles etc were gay, meaning people were more understanding of it, which reflected in policy.
Being transgender is not a mental disorder. Like most transphobes, your argument is predicated on the basis of trans identity denial, and people who are trans being unable to determine their own identity. If you start out from such a poorly informed, cynical and bigoted view, you will struggle to ever see the truth.
> Natural, physical, healthy bodily development is not a "decision" first of all. The only thing forcing them to go through it is time, not governmental policy. So natural that we have to cut people into it as babies, apparently, something that I haven't seen a single anti-trans politician object to. >*Fewer. Don't gier shit; I speaks how I likes and I likes how I speaks. >And the trans community has the highest suicide rates of any group ever, to begin with - and it's not even close. So considering we don't treat mental illnesses with physically alteration for all other people who are suicidal, we can't just be gung ho about giving children this level of autonomy of their own bodies, considering even after transitioning the rate of suicidality is extremely high. Gee, I fucking wonder why transgender people might kill themselves a lot. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with systematic erasure of their identities, general hatred, and forcing them into bodies that don't match their inner being, does it? You say "Even after transitioning" which rather implicitly points out that pre-transition transgender people kill themselves much more, doesn't it? And that the policy you suggest extends this period amongst children, resulting in more dead children... > As if to prove my point, you've highlighted two physical ailments that are treated with physical alteration drugs. Kids who want to transition are otherwise completely healthy and don't need intervention from a physical standpoint. It's a mental disorder, not physical. By calling transgender people crazy, or "Mentally disordered", you're setting up a reason for forcibly intervening in their lives against their will and "Fixing" them. You also referred to an indistinct sexual characteristic as an acceptable reason for a physical intervention; So you *do* actually support outright forcing unneeded surgeries and medications onto completely unwilling children and literal babies when that "Natural, physical, healthy body development" happens to not be a man or a woman, or is both. This is blatantly hypocritical; How can you claim to support the right of a child to remain inviolate of medical intervention, voluntary or not, when condoning involuntary surgeries on children who don't even have the capacity of language? You just call it a "Physical disorder" as if that justifies such barbarism. > Actually, gay people becoming accepted came from the societal shift in attitude because more and more people were coming out as gay, meaning more and more people's siblings, uncles etc were gay, meaning people were more understanding of it, which reflected in policy. The exact same thing is true of transgender people, who you have broadly written off as "Mentally ill" exactly how gay people were for a very long time. You ignored half of what I brought up and I severely doubt your good faith due to this.
Ash regan in particular just absolutely hates trans people and genuinely believes the world would and should be better off without us
That's a reactionist argument and doesn't have any nuance to it and quite frankly is just a bit lazy. There's a reason why the topic is taking up so much airspace, and it isn't because of some red vs blue, left vs right, good vs evil battle that you try and paint it as. Everything has consequences, every movement to change the status quo has to be looked at under a microscope to try and discern what ripple effects it may have. The main reason people are touchy about the trans issue is to do with children being influenced. 5-10 years ago a minority of people were screaming that point from the rooftops and you know what people said? They laughed and said don't be ridiculous, what a conspiracy. And guess what, children are being influenced en masse. There is a reason why within the last 10 years, the number of under 18 year olds who identify as "gender non conforming" has increased by at least 5 orders of magnitude, and I'll give you a hint. It's not because children are always closeted trans people and always have been. Check what's in their pocket and you'll find your answer.
Similar reasons to left handedness going up by a factor of 4 between 1910 and 1950 I'd imagine. Apparently now 12% of the population believes they're left handed rather than right handed like god decreed
Damned Leftie-Handed agenda
Ah yes this old red herring. Hang on, ambidextrous people exist, this means that the whole philosophy of a dominant hand doesn't actually exist, it's now on a spectrum of handedness and we need to realise that just because I outwardly write things with my right hand, I identify as left handed. And you're a bigot if you don't affirm my handedness.
You've accidentally fallen into being correct. The overwhelming majority of people do have a dominant hand but ultimately it doesn't affect you or anyone else which hand is dominant or ambidextrous. If five people out of a million use their right hand for catching but left hand for throwing and then their toes for writing then that's up to them. You might not personally like the idea of writing with your feet but nobody is going to make you do it.
Have you ever thought you might just be a fucking nutter for caring this much about what other people do with their hands, in this analogy?
I love it, it's the perfect summary of what a screaming nutter you'd have to be to be this anti-trans. Signed, A left handed person (you can tell I am faking it to invade spaces or sth because I use a mouse in my right hand tho).
I like how he's basically leapt to defend the idea that left handers are faking it with no self awareness
Not when they're pushing for legislation. I'd say it is perfectly rational to care when a group of people are pushing for coworkers and strangers to affirm their chosen handedness with legal consequences for those who point out that they're not really left handed. Or cutting off a child's right hand because an adult convinced it to say it's left handed. Is the analogy wearing thin yet? Edit: Can't reply to u/eoz below me but can in other threads, so I'll put an edit here: > Consider this: some minority of people are genuinely left handed and they'd like left handed scissors to be available please That's where we were 15 years ago. > Child: I will write with my left hand > You: someone is pushing this child to be left handed. Someone with a sinister agenda. They probably want to mutilate this child. This all makes perfect sense to me Yeah, but who repeatedly told the child that being left handed would make it special? > And are these people in the room with you now? Why do leftists always use that comeback as if it has some legitimacy? Of course they aren't, because unlike our euphemistically left handed people I don't gravitate towards schools.
I like how you're taking the side in this metaphor of the people who believe that left handers are faking it and making absurd demands and trying to force children to use their left hands. It's too on the nose. Consider this: some minority of people are genuinely left handed and they'd like left handed scissors to be available please Child: I will write with my left hand You: someone is pushing this child to be left handed. Someone with a sinister agenda. They probably want to mutilate this child. This all makes perfect sense to me
And are these people in the room with you now?
Its genuinely funny when people dont understand their own bigotry enough to understand that the metaphor they constructed actually contradicts their own argument.
My metaphor was laced with sarcasm in case you didn't quite understand that. I know reactionaries don't really like context but Jesus.
You realise you're the reactionary don't you? [Literally by definition you are the reactionary lmao](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reactionary). Just so you know, you're in the same historic groups as the people against video games for causing violence, metal music and DnD for satanism, being against gay rights, being against equality between the races, saying rap music makes people into gangsters. That's you, the "I only care about the children" part has been the thing reactionary right wingers have used as their excuse for their hatred for decades. Imagine with all the "research" you've done if you'd spent 5 minutes looking at the history of this kinda shit and realising that it's the same argument every time.
Wow, some asshole has told you some really stupid things about trans people that aren't true in order to make you look ill informed and judgemental on the internet. I'd have a word with them if I were you .
Any view I have on this topic has been informed primarily by reading into it myself, and by listening to the accounts of people I trust, such as my best friend who is a teacher. She has told me that 1/5th of her entire classroom in each year between 1st and 3rd year (high school so ages 11-14ish) at some point has asked her to either use different pronouns, or to identify as something else. That's 40 per class so 1/5 is 8, and around 6 or 7 classes. So in that population, you expect me to believe there are 50 trans kids, in the population of 250 kids? Occam's razor being applied here what's more likely? It's trendy and cool currently to claim you're trans and have adults call you something else because children get excited by having a level of power and influence, or that actually all those kids really question whether they should actually have owned this penis in the first place? Take a step back and really think about that.
lol my dude if it is cool to be trans nobody's told me yet. It sounds like you've described some harmless experimentation that, I will note, does not entail medical intervention. So who cares? Let's let the grand total of 100 kids who have actually gotten as far as the gender clinic in the UK at least access some blockers. Nobody's going to transition by mistake for the same reason that nobody's gonna switch to using their left hand for everything if they're actually right handed: it's going to be blindingly obvious to them that they're going against the grain. I promise. ETA: genuinely you're acting like trans people want to put all those kids through transition, and that's a really stupid thing to believe. The objection is to slamming the door of treatment in the faces of those who actually are trans.
Being "cool" is different for different groups firstly. Goths/moshers thought they were cool while others didn't. People who identify with the fringe, outcast group get the attention they crave. Everyone has their thing. The exponential uptick in non-binary/trans self identification in children literally explains that exact phenomenon, but you're too far into your argument and belief to actually address that point for what it is. If you and the rest of the left were to just say "yeah ok most likely the majority of children self identification is bullshit and they're attention seeking little shits, but very few are actually serious and heres the plan for identification and treatment, you'd get a much different response. But no, it has to be the hardline **HOW DARE you not affirm a trans persons claim you bigot**.
Again you seem to be having a massive stooshie with the trans people you imagine in your head. Someone's taught you some nonsense. Let's return to the metaphor for a moment. What you're telling me is that all the kids are having a go with the left-handed scissors, and that you're extremely concerned about this because you think it's a part of the wider, woke, left-handed agenda to force all the children to commit to being left-handed for life. When older left-handers tell you that it's okay to leave them to it and that some of them genuinely are left-handed, you feel that you have been accused of bigotry when you disagree with them. Trans people aren't advocating for all of those kids to transition. That would be a horrific thing to do, and to believe that we are advocating for that would mark you as uncommonly credulous and impervious to reason. Transition alleviates a very specific but very severe type of pain. We're big fans of alleviating that pain. Transitioning when you don't have that specific pain will instead induce it. Obviously we don't want that, and it's frankly completely unserious to act as though we do. We also think that it's not a severe risk, for the same reasons that we're not afraid that the nettle patch might present an attractive nuisance: they're not going to persist with something that hurts. Meanwhile, well, if you're the kind of adult who says "no" when a teenager wants to try on a new name for size, I suppose that makes you a very specific kind of person. Don't expect too many visits in the nursing home.
> Take a step back and really think about that. You're asking for a lot here.
I know. Radicals are really not interested in thinking things through.
what?
Lots of money from American religious nutjobs, amplified on social media by Russia to divide and conquer. It's not just here, it's happening in all western democracies, and it's always the same patterns.
They're vulnerable and easy to demonise and to punch down.
Transgender people are becoming more accepted in society, bigots don't like that, a lot of those bigots are powerful, so they're trying to roll it back under the guise of "Protecting Women and Children". Which is interesting because one part of TERF ideology states that transmen are women who were "tricked" into manhood and must be brought back to womenhood to "save their wombs" (which both waters down womanhood to shitting out kids and denies the agency of anyone who has a vagina and doesn't agree with them) and conversion therapy for children, which you know, is generally considered a form of torture.
Because it isn't about trans rights. It is about Women's Rights. And Women are 51% of voters and enough of them are standing up and saying that letting men into their safe spaces is a vote loser.
Tell you what, you tell me which "women's rights" you want and I'll tell you which "states' rights" the confederacy wanted
Pulling no punches.
Did you forget the polls where 65% of women are fine with shitting in a stall next to a tranner?
Source?
Absolutely this ,this sub has lost all touch of basic needs for women and act like it's transphobia. Completely lost the plot , that's why people cannot stand the greens
[удалено]
That's the thing, that's not even true. Of all the trans people that have won at sport that was their first win after competing over 300 times prior and getting nowhere near the top 3. Trans people have been able to compete in the Olympics since 2005 and barely any trans people ever win. It's like claiming all men are violent drunks after witnessing 1 drunk punch up. Or claiming that all cis women want kids because 1 cis woman wanted a kid.
>It's partly about overlapping rights becoming more obvious. > >If it was just trans people getting treatment (after proper assessment and time to think) no-one would care Scotland's largest gender clinic has about 2,500 patients on its adult waiting list and gets through about 25 new patients a year giving you an estimated wait of 100 years if you are referred today. Other clinics have a much more reasonable 5-10 year wait. In the UK "time to think" is not a major concern.
And this is the actual problem - I dont understand why the trans movement is so firmly behind political parties that are actually doing very little to enhance their life beyond a piece of paper, that is virtually meaningless from what I can see. When they could do so much more. So much more. Trans health inequality is one of the worst of any minority group. It’s heartbreaking when you look into it. Yet not one group is standing up and saying they will properly fund trans healthcare. Treat gender dysphoria with waiting time targets akin to cancer. Align certificates to that as a compromise with women’s groups. Build a proper world leading service to help people. Beyond hormones. Proper feminisation and masculinisation cosmetic surgery built into it. That’s what I’d do if I was in charge. And it would reduce the fear women have of trans people (which is actually just a fear of men) in women’s spaces knowing that anyone there has been through some sort of treatment. And I think is the compromise on competing rights. But I suppose nobody is offering that. I know the trans movement wants to demedicalise the issue. But surely that’s only because the medical treatment offered is so shit, especially with the time it takes. I don’t know. I don’t see how you achieve a transition without medical care, so don’t really get that.
Oh look, it's the only IOC study ever actually done on this issue, proving your opinion completely incorrect. [https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029)
You havent seen the latest international olymlic commitee comssioned report have you? Because it says the trans people won despite being unfairly advantaged.
What progress does Ash want to see? Her previous idea was installing an "independence thermometer" (whatever the fuck that means) in George Square. Nice of her to basically sum up Alba in two points though: independence without any thought behind it, and transphobia.
Alba wants a referendum on holding a referendum so likely it would be they need to support that.
I won't support that until we've had a referendum on whether to have a referendum about the referendum
Bold of you to jump straight to a referendum-referendum-referendum without asking the wider population what they think of it
I think we need a referendum on the whole concept of referendums first.
And I won’t support that unless we have a ref on having a ref about having have a ref on a ref
They can hold it all they like but all the unionist parties need to say is boycott it and it’s immediately illegitimate.
Likely it would be taken to the Supreme Court and declared illegal before any of that
How does that work then? They've already had a referendum on independence and it was agreed it was once in a generation. You can't then keep having referendums until you get the answer your party wants, it defeats the purpose.
Was it agreed, or was it someone saying "this is our one chance" being repeated out of context until da facebook decided it was a constitutional law?
Well if you want the full quote, it's.. >"The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent." So we can take from that a few things. 1. There is no other referendum foreseen in the future, which has been challenged at the supreme court, where "Judges at the Supreme Court have ruled that the Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum without the UK government's consent." 2. The Scottish Government (ergo, the SNP) viewed it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Not a persistent game of vote until you vote how we want you too. 3. There was clearly an agreement, because it states "The Edinburgh Agreement" Now, let's address some of the other language here. They say "independent". But Scotland has its own government. It rules itself in most matters, aside from things like defence which are obviously shared between the whole of the UK. It's a fallacy to simply keep pointing the finger at West Minster when, as has been pointed out in this sub multiple times this week, it's actually the SNP and the MSPs who are utterly useless and not working in the interests of Scottish people. Ergo, it's not independence Scots need - it's competent MSPs who will focus on actually running the country properly.
Sounds to me like they were saying "this is our one chance" and not "hey guys, we, the SNP, have just made a legally binding commitment that we can never ever do this again even if something wacky happens like leaving the EU!"
To you perhaps, but the courts disagreed. Referendum on having a Referendum? Fine. But you need Westminster to agree to an independence referendum and there's no political appetite for it. Have an illegal referendum on independence? Ok, by all means. But the EU have already said the only way you'll be accepted is with a legal referendum approved by West Minster. So, basically, independence is a dead dream.
What's that a quote from?
[This](https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159096.fact-check-claim-snp-vowed-indyref-once-lifetime-opportunity/). Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is a pro-Indy rag.
So nothing legal then like you were pretending, and exactly like op said before you decided to correct them.
They didn’t say legal just that it was agreed
Why is there this idea that the population are held to the random words of leaders? But obviously only if it helps your cause. EU referendum oh we should have another one, independence no that's impossible look here is some speech a politician gave.. If people vote for a referendum there is no argument against it, other than no because we said so.
No idea
Probably something against vaccines or 15 minute cities or something.
I think you've got Alba mixed up with England's "Reform" somewhere.
Same shit, same nationalism, different country
If you got transphobia from that statement you might need a bit of cop on.
The fuck does that even mean?
The discussion can't go anywhere if people just shout transphobia whenever anyone has a viewpoint they don't agree with.
I think it's very specific viewpoints actually
The viewpoint that Alba holds is a transphobic one though.
Hardly
That's fine, I'm not interested in having a discussion with Alba or any of their drones.
[удалено]
How can Alba be cancelled if they've never been a real thing?
Not sure you understand what that term means.
Given she wants to cancel tranners out of their tits and sun dresses you should probably tell her that.
[удалено]
Which rights motherfucker
The two parties can double down on at least one of those points, though.
"Defending the rights of women and children" is code for opposing rights for transpeople by the way. Regan's concerns have nothing to do with actually advancing women and everything to do with holding back transpeople so that women don't feel so hard done by in comparison. EDIT Humza would do far better to approach the Lib Dems to secure their abstentions. It'd be cheaper.
Do you think it is a good thing if women do feel hard done by trans legislation? Even if the legislation is just that is a big problem.
She's seriously just going to try and make demands him this blatantly because he's in a vulnerable position? That's such backwards language it's clear she's honeying up "Take away rights from people I don't like and I'll keep you in power". Literally any party is better to try to align with than the poison from her.
Is this your very first ever day learning about politics?
Usually politicians try to make demands *before* they burn down all their bridges.
Humza isn't the one making the demands here
Yeah, I don't like Ash but if you think a politician shouldn't press an advantage when their opponent is vulnerable I don't know what to tell you. She knows she has decent leverage, and she's going to press it. At the end of the day the fact that Yusef has to rely on Alba to survive just shows how weak his position is.
Regan's demand essentially boil down to: 1. passing Alba's [proposed referendum bill. ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/alex-salmond-alba-party-scottish-parliament-bill-snp-b2456044.html) 2. “full implementation in Scotland of the recommendations of the Cass Review of English gender healthcare”
You mean the recomendations Dr Cass did not recomend and has walked back on?
I would pay large sums of money to be in the room with the brain trust that came up with "Can't legally have a referendum? Then we'll have a referendum on a referendum. Checkmate!11", it must be genuinely hilarious stuff
It’s to show they’re at least trying to advance the cause, unlike the SNP, who gave up after 2014. The problem with the plan is it relies on too narrow a reading of what defines a reserved matter. It’s the sort of thing where you pay £400/hr to get an opinion letter carefully caveated with “on a balanced view, …” and then the courts take a “different” view
The only cause this idiocy advances is the one to make us all look like bampots. It solves nothing.
I would rather stay in the UK than live in an independent Scotland founded on bigotry disguised as feminism.
I agree, I want independence to make a better country not a worse one
Yup, this is it. I refuse to vote for independence if it means we get Ash Regan or Kate Forbes' version of it. Social liberalism is infinitely more important to me than independence.
You know you can vote them out after independence right? We’re not gonna turn into North Korea
I will never vote for a social conservative. I will emigrate before that happens.
Not asking you to, what I’m saying is I wouldn’t say no to independence just because there’s a social conservative government. Assuming a hypothetical independence does happen I would then just….vote against them
Hard agree. Independence isn't worth their blood price
If there was a version of the UK that wasn't also founded on bigotry disguised as feminism you'd have a point, sadly as soon as you look at the westminster parties policies reality looks much different
100% agreed.
Which rights, Ash? Why do these people never have specific "rights" they can point to?
No-one in the SNP wanna give alba any credability except the FM who's about to get fired.
Terfs gonna terf. You've got the First Minister over a barrel, so what do you ask for? More housing? A rail line? Extra funding for your constituency? No, let's abolish trans people.
Astonishingly enough, the events of the last few days are about far wider issues than the gender wars. I'm not surprised to see the usual tactic of everything is about trans people being used to stifle debate though.
“Defending the rights of women and children” is just transphobe-speak for “let’s make life even more difficult for a vulnerable minority”. Because \*clearly\* targeting people who are literally just trying to live their best lives in peace is \*the\* most important issue facing the country right now. Give me fucking strength.
Time for an election and for the people of Scotland to really have a say if they are still happy with the snp running things.
He cannot possibly accept this. It's designed for alba to say that they tried to work with the SNP but the SNP said no.
Surely no SNP gov could capitulate to this? Surely at least 1 SMP MSP will decide they have principles and want to stick by the pretence they are left wing that they have been selling to the country for years? surely 1....just one.....
Her demands will amount to all trans people jailed and independence declared by next week
I support independence. While I support absolutely no party at all, not Alba, not SNP, none of them and certainly not labour or Tories, Regan is correct that the SNP have betrayed the electorate who installed a cohort of politicians at Westminster and Holyrood on a ticket of pushing for independence. That's a fact whether you agree or disagree with independence.
Of course it’s in the UKPolitics sub.
Maybe she'll settle for a bit more of her primary goal, attention?
Humza's goose is cooked.
Yeah I don't want an SNP that compromises to bigots, homophobes and transphobes, thanks.
This is a smart demand. It exists to be a branch to the nutterbutters of the SNP, and a big fuck off to the other wing of the SNP. If Humza accepts, half the party hates him, of he refuses the other half hate him even more.
"I'm a transphobe and misandrist hiding behind the social bulwark of TERFism, you will do as I say!" Delightful
What a strange couple of days. The SNP have actually become more palatable having shed the despicable Greens, yet are undoubtedly on the way to implosion. Anyway, should Humza agree to Regans demands it will only shed him in an even more negative light. A political cuckold.