Zern

My mom had a penis. She kept it in the wardrobe.

Mostly the right to exist in law. To have their legal documents reflect their gender and legal protections against discrimination on the basis of them being transgender. Are you going anywhere with this?

Where in my post does it say that do not have rights?

Hi there. I doubt what you say is true. But if you feel my post somehow crosses some threshold, the report button is right there. Although i think you might struggle to form a coherent complaint. f_c_Dundee said that cognitive dissonance is present in people arguing against her. She did not provide any examples of what it is or where it might be present. I thought i would provide some examples because i am familiar with the subject. I also though it was quite funny that her posts are littered with so many examples.

Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating subject and i would recommend "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger which is the origin or the term. It's not so much that there are two conflicting ideas being held. It is more about how the tension between those ideas gets resolved. How the it manifests itself in order to diminish the dissonance. For example: To the transphobe; there is no good reason or evidence for transgender people to receive any recognition. Fact: In society transgender people are a minority. They do not occupy positions of power or influence. Theirs is a history or being marginalised and discriminated against. They are not part of establishment. Nor do they form any large voting bloc or political party. And yet.. Transgender people are now recognised UK laws and have rights. Under a Conservative government. The tension exists between the powerless position of trangender people and the granting of rights within the establishment. How is it resolved? One way is to recognise that there are sufficient argument in favour of those rights. Unacceptable to the transphobe. So they resolve the tension in another way: negate that they are powerless That's where you get the conspiracy theory; the trans agenda, the shadowy cabal of doctors, the cultural marxists and the woke mind virus that makes their power level greater than Goku himself. Similar to how the Q'Conspiracist explains away Trump being President and not locking up Hillary - he did not lie (that is unacceptable), therefore he was thwarted by the conspiratorial 'deep state'. ..and that's when the Nazis turn up; they love shadowy conspiracies and have 'opinions' on their preferred candidate. Which is why you see such crossover between the groups.

Heh. Not surprising. Football isn't exactly progressive. It's why even now we still have initiatives and programs to stamp out racism and homophobia. I still remember the furore and outrage over the cross-dressing in the 80's Mo Johnston in a Rangers tap "IT AIN't NATURAL!!!11"

Becomes less worthy when you realise who the trains were transporting, and where they were going.

I dunno. When you start to say that Humza missed the vote because of unspecified reasons, but ignore his previous support and votes, his continued support and votes for further legislation and that in this case it was a final vote with cross-party and majority support where his vote was not vital. You add in the fact that being absent is not a vote against and it seems the accusation is a bit thin. Not to mention his support, membership and representation for the SNP, the party that has introduced and formulated all this legislation. There is also his challenging the s35 which he is under no obligation to do. As the other two candidates clearly demonstrate. I've been watching the hustings and he explains that his growing up as a minority in Scotland makes him more sensitive to issue of rights and representation. I can believe that. A lot of context has to be removed to make it seem as if there is something mutterful amiss, and it doesn't appear to amount o whole lot more than a manufactured outrage. I watched the Beth Rigby interview and there was f**k all there too. Salmond looked well-fed though. The hustings are lot less confrontational and more conversational than the press would like. So they have to look for dissent and gossip to make into something that the mouth-breathers will latch on to. What 's interesting is that there is no real scandal or corruption.

I watched the first one, Humza was the better composed of all three. Will watch the next too. I suspect Humza will remain favourite throughout.

Wut a line to open with On February 9, the 27 heads of state and government of the European Union (EU) met in Brussels to decide on a massive tightening up of the common asylum and immigration policies. Another key topic was the escalation of the Ukraine war against Russia.

One Joke®

Ian Murray always looks like he needs a wash. Like he lives in the bins round the back, alone and unloved.

My guess is that they are waiting for the decision from the Supreme Court. Politeness Ditto Not really, no Lords. That's a significant difference between the SNP, Scottish Greens and some other political parties.

He types, "whatever" in response to Antlion then 10mins later, reads said response takes offence and then go off on one. How drunk do you have to be to take umbrage at your own replies? Laughing my ass off here.

Dude has more pics of Nicola than an SNP fanbois.

I believe the correct term for a bunch of lemmings is a slice.

lol Priti Patel fails to get enough backers. They're all horrible, self-serving liars who will cater their promises to what their increasingly elderly members want. Average age is 72. Pandering will become the order of the day. Rishi is hoping they fancy him. He is well prepared, thanks to taxpayer funds: Rishi Sunak spends £500,000 of taxpayers’ cash on focus groups ‘to repair his image’ | The Independent The Rish bitch won't spend his own funds.

Some of them are just trying to increase their public profile in hopes of landing a cabinet position.

He says he is offering change, yet his signal policy is merely to comply with the NIP as written which is a continuation of Tory policy. Make Brexit twerk.

Kier Starmer giving a speech. It's not great as he is a bad public speaker. He mentioned Gordon Brown doing something on devolution and Lord Blunkett too.

In 2021 The SNP won the majority of the vote, it was the largest single party. Majority does not mean they command overall or outright majority on their own but hey do command the largest voting preference at the ballot box. Here's example ballot that may help your misunderstanding. Simple election vote. 100 votes total. 4 Candidates A,B,C and D. A get 40 votes B, C & D get 20 each. Who won the majority of the votes? A Who wins the seat. A. The other 60 don't count as a unitary block, because their share is split 3 ways with only 20 each. Now, this is my question to you. IF the SNP were to command 50% or greater, what would change? What threshold in law are we attaining? I can't find any. This requirement appears to be just another arbitrary hurdle. One of many set by opponents who lost at the ballot box. Because the fact is if they were polling at greater than 50% yet unable to command the legislature then they would not be able to hold a referendum, and the opposition party that presumably would be in power wouldn't be minded to bring one forward on the basis of polling.

A majority of the Scottish electorate were motivated enough to back parties that supported another referendum, enough to gain majority representation in our Parliament. How is this not indicative that majority are in favour? That's the question, if a majority were not in favour why is that not being reflected at the ballot box. I've not really commented on FPTP or called it unfair, so i have no idea where you get that from. Our system is more sensitive to swings from one party to another though, so if people were so motivated to oppose they could easily unseat the parties in favour of Indy and remove them from power, but they do not. It's not because they cannot. It's because they are in the minority.

If elections aren't representative of the political desires of the electorate then what are they? Are the results meaningless? What other measure would you use?

That's not how we elect representatives.

They don't seem to realise that the majority want a referendum. The evidence is that there were enough of the Scottish electorate motivated to vote in favour of a majority of representatives in our parliament to do exactly that.