Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

It seeks to exclude some women obviously.

 

I’m assuming you’re male (apologies if I’ve got that wrong)... so what makes you think you have the right to determine how women’s rights groups go about advocating for or defending women’s rights?

Also, any response to the other question I asked: what would be the ‘right reasons’ for criticising Sturgeon? By implication, what are the ‘wrong reasons’?

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

They control the NEC. 

That's a bit more relevant than getting to sit next to Blackford at PMQs. 

The NEC is as split as the party, unfortunately: I didn’t realise until yesterday that there are 13 members of that committee who are not elected by the membership, but appointed and loyal to Sturgeon.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

10 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Sturgeon using transphobia as a proxy to wage internal battles would just be following from what the mental wing of her party have been doing for the last 2-3 years lol 

Yeah the analogy only works if corbyn and Matt Zarb-Cousin (or whoever the wings equivalent is) had spent 2 years promoting blood libel

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 hours ago, AMMjag said:

'I don't know so I'll just speculate he's transphobe' is as equally extreme as outright transphobia, and exactly the reason why many in the party are stuck in this quagmire of shite.

That’s the nub of the entire problem (with politics in general, not just the unfolding collapse of the SNP)...

Two things can be true at the same time: it can be true that society has been slow to recognise the discrimination and harassment people who are gender non-conforming are subjected to... and it can also be true that some people, rather than genuinely attempting to find solutions, will use that to shut down debate and, worse, as a cover for their own prejudices.

For every individual who genuinely supports the right of trans people not to be discriminated against, there’s another who couldn’t give a f**k but will virtue-signal their support for fear of being branded a bigot... and then another five (usually, but not always, men) who’ll use it to attack women in ways they’ve learned are otherwise unacceptable.

Far too many people on the left or who see themselves as ‘progressive’ don’t realise they’re being sold shite with the deliberate purpose of ensuring there can never be any meaningful solidarity in opposition to established power. Wedge-shaped diversion, that’s all it is.

[NotThePars]

19 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

I’m assuming you’re male (apologies if I’ve got that wrong)... so what makes you think you have the right to determine how women’s rights groups go about advocating for or defending women’s rights?

Also, any response to the other question I asked: what would be the ‘right reasons’ for criticising Sturgeon? By implication, what are the ‘wrong reasons’?

Because it excludes some women and plenty of other women, cis or otherwise, have voiced their opposition and concern with these groups. You can either, as a man, shut up anaw or you can accept that other people can comment. Given I'm bisexual and subsequently fall under the LGBTQ umbrella I feel obligated to look out for the more marginalised T. 

The right reasons would be criticising the Growth Commission, the wrong would be taking your cues from the swivel eyed Bath boy.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

Because it excludes some women and plenty of other women, cis or otherwise, have voiced their opposition and concern with these groups. You can either, as a man, shut up anaw or you can accept that other people can comment. Given I'm bisexual and subsequently fall under the LGBTQ umbrella I feel obligated to look out for the more marginalised T. 

So you’d agree that option 1, shutting up, is better than howling ‘transphobe!’ at any woman or woman’s group who has concerns about aspects of GRA or the Hate Crime bill?

I happen to think that men, bisexual, gay, or otherwise, should be able to participate in that discussion, but that there’s a strong responsibility to be aware of the perspective from which you’re doing it, i.e. not directly affected by the issues in play.

That’s not what we’re seeing, though.

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

The right reasons would be criticising the Growth Commission, the wrong would be taking your cues from the swivel eyed Bath boy.

Agree with the first... and relieved that I’m all clear on the second.

Where would ‘your husband and Chief Exec of the SNP “declining” the harassment inquiry’s “invitation” to go back and “clarify” his evidence’ sit? Good reason or bad reason?

[NotThePars]

4 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

So you’d agree that option 1, shutting up, is better than howling ‘transphobe!’ at any woman or woman’s group who has concerns about aspects of GRA or the Hate Crime bill?

I don't think the people being amplified in this debate have legitimate concerns, sorry. I think some people not mired in the swamp might well do and that's fair enough as they're not well-versed in the dog whistles but in the grand scheme of things I think "shouting at someone online and sending memes" doesn't really come close to "actively using your position as an MP and a senior figure in your party to block progressive change".

17 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

I happen to think that men, bisexual, gay, or otherwise, should be able to participate in that discussion, but that there’s a strong responsibility to be aware of the perspective from which you’re doing it, i.e. not directly affected by the issues in play.

That’s not what we’re seeing, though.

But what you said was this:

1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

I’m assuming you’re male (apologies if I’ve got that wrong)... so what makes you think you have the right to determine how women’s rights groups go about advocating for or defending women’s rights?

Which reads to me as you trying to say I can't comment. Which is fine but then you should do the same and stop kidding on you're just relaying some women's opinions which don't speak for everybody given the wide and vociferous opposition they've experienced from cis and trans women.

 

19 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Where would ‘your husband and Chief Exec of the SNP “declining” the harassment inquiry’s “invitation” to go back and “clarify” his evidence’ sit? Good reason or bad reason?

I think it's fine to ask questions about that but capering for a QC who isn't as smart as she thinks she is but is twice as angry as she considers herself and fighting her proxy war despite her covering for transphobes and anti-Semites really isn't the right way, imo, to go about attacking Sturgeon.

[NotThePars]

Learning how Ad Lib does his posting is the worst thing I've picked up on this site. Ignorance was bliss.

[invergowrie arab]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

They control the NEC. 

That's a bit more relevant than getting to sit next to Blackford at PMQs. 

How's that going https://www.thenational.scot/news/19018288.snp-nec-votes-motion-indy-strategy-working-group/

1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

The NEC is as split as the party, unfortunately: I didn’t realise until yesterday that there are 13 members of that committee who are not elected by the membership, but appointed and loyal to Sturgeon.

Shite 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

3 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

I don't think the people being amplified in this debate have legitimate concerns, sorry. I think some people not mired in the swamp might well do and that's fair enough as they're not well-versed in the dog whistles but in the grand scheme of things I think "shouting at someone online and sending memes" doesn't really come close to "actively using your position as an MP and a senior figure in your party to block progressive change".

But what you said was this:

Which reads to me as you trying to say I can't comment. Which is fine but then you should do the same and stop kidding on you're just relaying some women's opinions which don't speak for everybody given the wide and vociferous opposition they've experienced from cis and trans women.

 

I think it's fine to ask questions about that but capering for a QC who isn't as smart as she thinks she is but is twice as angry as she considers herself and fighting her proxy war despite her covering for transphobes and anti-Semites really isn't the right way, imo, to go about attacking Sturgeon.

Cagey, cagey... you don’t think ‘the people being amplified in this debate’ have legitimate concerns? But some (many) women and women’s groups do, yes?

Also, read back and you’ll see that I didn’t say you can’t comment; I asked a question, plain and simple, to see what your answer would be. Your answer goes some of the way to confirming that ‘shutting up’ or engaging responsibly are better than hurling abuse or hi-jacking the debate for dishonest and basically misogynistic purposes... but then there’s that caginess again, which I suspect is because you can’t separate the general discussion from the image of the QC you keep bringing up (who I didn’t mention).

And it’s you who makes the connection between Murrell’s hilarious obedience to what his lawyer is now telling him and that same QC. Whether Peter Murrell lied (about the actions of his wife, the FM, btw) and whether he should be compelled to tell the truth has absolutely nothing to do with Cherry or trans rights. Really, nothing.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

3 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Shite 

What bit, genius?

[invergowrie arab]

Just now, The Ghost of B A R P said:

What bit, genius?

The bit I quoted 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

The bit I quoted 

What bit of the bit you quoted?

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

 there are 13 members of that committee who are not elected by the membership, but appointed and loyal to Sturgeon.

 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

 

Aye, but is it the bit about there being unelected members? Or the bit about the unelected members being loyal to Sturgeon?

[NotThePars]

6 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Cagey, cagey... you don’t think ‘the people being amplified in this debate’ have legitimate concerns? But some (many) women and women’s groups do, yes?

Also, read back and you’ll see that I didn’t say you can’t comment; I asked a question, plain and simple, to see what your answer would be. Your answer goes some of the way to confirming that ‘shutting up’ or engaging responsibly are better than hurling abuse or hi-jacking the debate for dishonest and basically misogynistic purposes... but then there’s that caginess again, which I suspect is because you can’t separate the general discussion from the image of the QC you keep bringing up (who I didn’t mention).

And it’s you who makes the connection between Murrell’s hilarious obedience to what his lawyer is now telling him and that same QC. Whether Peter Murrell lied (about the actions of his wife, the FM, btw) and whether he should be compelled to tell the truth has absolutely nothing to do with Cherry or trans rights. Really, nothing.

Mate are you deliberately trying to sound like a w****r with the condescending "cagey" nonsense or is that just how you post on here?

I clearly can separate the discussion given I've for some dumb reason made hundreds of posts on this topic over the years. It's almost like the discussion has been brought up again because of a certain Edinburgh based Member of Parliament.

And it's incredibly obvious why you asked the question because you thought it was a gotcha lol. 

 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

24 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Mate are you deliberately trying to sound like a w****r with the condescending "cagey" nonsense or is that just how you post on here?

I clearly can separate the discussion given I've for some dumb reason made hundreds of posts on this topic over the years. It's almost like the discussion has been brought up again because of a certain Edinburgh based Member of Parliament.

And it's incredibly obvious why you asked the question because you thought it was a gotcha lol. 

 

f**k me... of all the things people call each other on here, you object to ‘cagey’...

Interesting that you think I’m trying to ‘get you’... as opposed to asking very specific questions to try and bring out what usually gets lost in this type of discussion... fuckin madness, eh?

Enjoy the rest of your night.

 

[Lurkst]

Tories are loving it...

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19057854.nicola-sturgeon-faces-holyrood-vote-husband-peter-murrells-snub-alex-salmond-inquiry/

[tirso]

20 hours ago, GordonS said:

FWIW, we don't know what Andy Wightman's camp is, other than he thinks he should be allowed to take any line he wants on an issue of equality and not be constrained by being in a political party. I think he's transphobe-curious and hasn't yet reached the realisation that the people who are opposed are no better than those who opposed homosexuality up until about 20 years ago. There were women's rights groups who didn't let lesbians in. I think he's confused that people fighting against one form of discrimination could be in favour of a different discrimination. But we're all guessing because he hasn't said anything.

It's a myth that this is about women BTW - in polling women are consistently much more open to trans people and their access to places.

 

This is the problem  in plain sight, Andy Wightman has never said anything other than he's concerned with the intolerance in the debate yet you're ready to call him transphobic curious.  Would defy you to find anything he 's said that's transphobic.  This attitude is really unhelpful.  

it's a myth there is an issue with trans in sports?  if people are saying trans are literally female there is a potential problem, as yet not huge, that may needs addressed in that specific area.  I don't think that's a myth.  

 

[DublinMagyar]

'Women’s organisations in Scotland, including Close the Gap, Engender, Equate Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Women 50:50 and Zero Tolerance, released a joint statement supporting a self-declaratory system for legal gender recognition in response to the consultation.

“We do not regard trans equality and women’s equality to contradict or be in competition with each other,” the joint statement said.'

 

Simples