It’s almost inevitable as a result of even a proposed change in the law in Scotland, that some pervert will get caught exhibiting himself to kids in a changing room under the pretext of considering himself to be a woman. Even just one occurrence of this will destroy the reputation of those supporting the change in law.
What a strange, and in the current extreme political landscape, barely perceptible hill to sacrifice your political career on.
I think Nicola has realised the game is up with IndyRef2, and is now just causing mischief whilst she burnishes her credentials for an international (EU?) role elsewhere.
It doesn’t though, see the Wi Spa incident in the US. A ‘woman with a p***s’, registered sex offender with a history being convicted of indecent exposure was up to their old tricks, ‘allegedly’ exposing themselves to minors. Eventually the person was charged, but rather than any kind of self-reflection the deranged left-wing media (NYT, WP, Guardian, etc.) instead just desperately tried to cover it up as a “right wing hoax”, a “far-right conspiracy”, etc.
These people don’t care at all about the consequences, no incident will be far enough for the cult to stop and think for a minute.
Can someone be ”assigned” their Sex at birth? I just thought ”they were what they were” at birth.I imagined the complications over gender only come much later.
Can someone be ”assigned” their Sex at birth? I just thought ”they were what they were” at birth.I imagined the complications over gender only come much later.
But whenever these cases are raised we’re ignored, told ‘they aren’t really trans though’ or (one of my favourites) told that this is what men do and the changes won’t make any difference to them doing it!
The gender lobbyists and their allies feel no shame about these incidents and they don’t seem to feel threatened by them at all.
It’s already happened many times.
The media will cover it up, the tech companies will block anyone who mentions it and the police will harass the person who reports it.
I think Nicola has realised the game is up with IndyRef2, and is now just causing mischief whilst she burnishes her credentials for an international (EU?) role elsewhere.
It doesn’t though, see the Wi Spa incident in the US. A ‘woman with a p***s’, registered sex offender with a history being convicted of indecent exposure was up to their old tricks, ‘allegedly’ exposing themselves to minors. Eventually the person was charged, but rather than any kind of self-reflection the deranged left-wing media (NYT, WP, Guardian, etc.) instead just desperately tried to cover it up as a “right wing hoax”, a “far-right conspiracy”, etc.
These people don’t care at all about the consequences, no incident will be far enough for the cult to stop and think for a minute.
But whenever these cases are raised we’re ignored, told ‘they aren’t really trans though’ or (one of my favourites) told that this is what men do and the changes won’t make any difference to them doing it!
The gender lobbyists and their allies feel no shame about these incidents and they don’t seem to feel threatened by them at all.
It’s already happened many times.
The media will cover it up, the tech companies will block anyone who mentions it and the police will harass the person who reports it.
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
It’s almost inevitable as a result of even a proposed change in the law in Scotland, that some pervert will get caught exhibiting himself to kids in a changing room under the pretext of considering himself to be a woman. Even just one occurrence of this will destroy the reputation of those supporting the change in law.
What a strange, and in the current extreme political landscape, barely perceptible hill to sacrifice your political career on.
Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
I find the comparison with Manicheanism very interesting. It is notable that the three most “progressive” nations are Scotland, Canada, and New Zealand, and what these three have in common is being bordered by much larger states (England, USA, and Australia). Could it be that they are desperately trying to show that they are better than those “evil”, but more powerful, states? If so then it would indicate a form of inferiority complex, which is certainly not something that a place like Scotland needs to suffer (I don’t know enough about the achievements of the other two to comment)
That has indeed been the SNP strategy for some time. I was an SNP member in the 1990’s. Back then, when Labour used to accuse the SNP of xenophobia, SNP strategists realised that they could win over the (left-leaning) Scottish commentariat, plus a large chunk of the Scottish chattering classes, by out-woking Labour on issues such as immigration, asylum, rights and equality. The strategy worked wonders for the SNP and has been in place ever since. All those issues are of little interest to Scots (immigration is at a much lower level in Scotland), so it has not so far alienated the SNP support base.
I agree with you 100%. It became a competition between some countries as to which country would have the lowest number of Covid fatalities. When the competition was at its peak, New Zealand were the clear leaders with Australia in second place, and Jacinda Ahern was incredibly popular. Now the competition is over and the zero Covid policy proved to be untenable and damaging, her popularity has plummeted. Today she has resigned as under the spotlight of more mundane issues, she has been seen to be incompetent .
I read somewhere that it has to do with the prime ministers of NZ and Canada having done the WEF Young Global Leaders training. I don’t know if Nicola Sturgeon has been “trained”.
The question of whether Scotland (or Wales or the Republic of Ireland) “need” to suffer an inferiority complex is irrelevant. They will do anything to wind up or put down the English.
I have left out Northern Ireland as it is a nation which doesn’t seem to suffer this grudge.
That has indeed been the SNP strategy for some time. I was an SNP member in the 1990’s. Back then, when Labour used to accuse the SNP of xenophobia, SNP strategists realised that they could win over the (left-leaning) Scottish commentariat, plus a large chunk of the Scottish chattering classes, by out-woking Labour on issues such as immigration, asylum, rights and equality. The strategy worked wonders for the SNP and has been in place ever since. All those issues are of little interest to Scots (immigration is at a much lower level in Scotland), so it has not so far alienated the SNP support base.
I agree with you 100%. It became a competition between some countries as to which country would have the lowest number of Covid fatalities. When the competition was at its peak, New Zealand were the clear leaders with Australia in second place, and Jacinda Ahern was incredibly popular. Now the competition is over and the zero Covid policy proved to be untenable and damaging, her popularity has plummeted. Today she has resigned as under the spotlight of more mundane issues, she has been seen to be incompetent .
I read somewhere that it has to do with the prime ministers of NZ and Canada having done the WEF Young Global Leaders training. I don’t know if Nicola Sturgeon has been “trained”.
The question of whether Scotland (or Wales or the Republic of Ireland) “need” to suffer an inferiority complex is irrelevant. They will do anything to wind up or put down the English.
I have left out Northern Ireland as it is a nation which doesn’t seem to suffer this grudge.
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
I find the comparison with Manicheanism very interesting. It is notable that the three most “progressive” nations are Scotland, Canada, and New Zealand, and what these three have in common is being bordered by much larger states (England, USA, and Australia). Could it be that they are desperately trying to show that they are better than those “evil”, but more powerful, states? If so then it would indicate a form of inferiority complex, which is certainly not something that a place like Scotland needs to suffer (I don’t know enough about the achievements of the other two to comment)
Arkadian X
1 year ago
What I don’t understand is why labour went along with it. Did they not foresee what would happen? You didn’t need to be a genius for that, and although the Scottish parliament is full of dimwits (of all colours) someone at labour hq should have rung some kind of bell and that says a lot about Sarwar’s abilities. Clearly the Scottish parliament is his (?) natural habitat.
My question is, who am I going to vote fore at the next election now that Labour is out of the equation (again)? Do I vote again for flip-flop man? How enthralling.
You ask why Labour went along with it. The minimum age for voting in Scottish Parliament elections is 16. The trans issue is the only political issue that excites that age group. They would not do the equivalent of burning their Harry Potter books about any other political issue: declining education standards, poor healthcare, dismal career prospects are of no interest to them. So this issue is political alchemy. The SNP can cause mischief, cast themselves in the role of victim AND hoover up the teen vote.
So why did Labour support the measure? Because they knew that opposing it would mean kissing goodbye to the teen vote.
Yes: the adolecent school childeren vote – you are right. I am surprised by now ‘she’ (Sturgeon) has not enacted a debate to get all senior school kids on the voting register, from aged 12!
I can understand it appealing to the 16 year-olds – gender-bending has a long teenage pedigree – Bowie, Boy George, Lola etc. And show me a teenager that doesn’t enjoy shocking his parents.
But doesn’t it turn off an equal number of pensioners? And won’t the 16 year-olds grow out of it once they have kids?
Doesn’t seem much of a strategy to me.
Pensioners in Scotland haaven’t got a clue what this is all about, so it does not affect their voting behaviour. Yes, the 16 year olds will (let us hope!!) grow out of it, but they will be replaced each year by fresh cohorts of 16 year olds.
Some of them wont be having kids if the government and medical professions go on validating their delusions of being the opposite sex. Once the medical pathway is embarked upon the health risks are huge.
Pensioners in Scotland haaven’t got a clue what this is all about, so it does not affect their voting behaviour. Yes, the 16 year olds will (let us hope!!) grow out of it, but they will be replaced each year by fresh cohorts of 16 year olds.
Some of them wont be having kids if the government and medical professions go on validating their delusions of being the opposite sex. Once the medical pathway is embarked upon the health risks are huge.
Yes: the adolecent school childeren vote – you are right. I am surprised by now ‘she’ (Sturgeon) has not enacted a debate to get all senior school kids on the voting register, from aged 12!
I can understand it appealing to the 16 year-olds – gender-bending has a long teenage pedigree – Bowie, Boy George, Lola etc. And show me a teenager that doesn’t enjoy shocking his parents.
But doesn’t it turn off an equal number of pensioners? And won’t the 16 year-olds grow out of it once they have kids?
Doesn’t seem much of a strategy to me.
You ask why Labour went along with it. The minimum age for voting in Scottish Parliament elections is 16. The trans issue is the only political issue that excites that age group. They would not do the equivalent of burning their Harry Potter books about any other political issue: declining education standards, poor healthcare, dismal career prospects are of no interest to them. So this issue is political alchemy. The SNP can cause mischief, cast themselves in the role of victim AND hoover up the teen vote.
So why did Labour support the measure? Because they knew that opposing it would mean kissing goodbye to the teen vote.
Arkadian X
1 year ago
What I don’t understand is why labour went along with it. Did they not foresee what would happen? You didn’t need to be a genius for that, and although the Scottish parliament is full of dimwits (of all colours) someone at labour hq should have rung some kind of bell and that says a lot about Sarwar’s abilities. Clearly the Scottish parliament is his (?) natural habitat.
My question is, who am I going to vote fore at the next election now that Labour is out of the equation (again)? Do I vote again for flip-flop man? How enthralling.
Edward Paleit
1 year ago
On the age issue, it’s worth noting that the right to marry or vote begins at 16 in Scotland. Before 1929 in fact the right to marry was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, following the Roman law. Hence elopements from South of the border, which still happen today (in England the minimum marriageable age is 18). In Scotland marriage has never required parental consent either.
This is relevant because whatever one thinks about the trans issue as such it’s clear that Scottish legal and cultural tradition place the boundary of sexual choice and autonomy i.e. adulthood at a younger age than certain other countries and has done for centuries. All the bill does is apply that boundary to a new instance.
Of course we can all have our own views on where adulthood should begin but I’m sceptical that there’s a knockout argument there instead of mere cultural preference or difference. The threshold age of maturity is not an absolute and different countries place it at different times.
I think it makes better sense therefore to concentrate on other aspects of the bill e.g. the elimination of medical diagnosis and the shortening of the period of living in ones claimed gender to 3 months. These are more problematic in my view. Sure others will disagree though!
The age aspect is highly problematic even at 18 years old; studies show that cognitive maturity isn’t reached until approximately 25 years old.
However, in regard to the Scottish Bill, the lowering to 16 creates a massive challenge simply because it brings schools into the equation (which 18 excluded to all intents and purposes).
The legal implications for schools, which would extend into the rest of the UK, are enough on their own to justify Westminster’s intervention
The age aspect is highly problematic even at 18 years old; studies show that cognitive maturity isn’t reached until approximately 25 years old.
However, in regard to the Scottish Bill, the lowering to 16 creates a massive challenge simply because it brings schools into the equation (which 18 excluded to all intents and purposes).
The legal implications for schools, which would extend into the rest of the UK, are enough on their own to justify Westminster’s intervention
Edward Paleit
1 year ago
On the age issue, it’s worth noting that the right to marry or vote begins at 16 in Scotland. Before 1929 in fact the right to marry was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, following the Roman law. Hence elopements from South of the border, which still happen today (in England the minimum marriageable age is 18). In Scotland marriage has never required parental consent either.
This is relevant because whatever one thinks about the trans issue as such it’s clear that Scottish legal and cultural tradition place the boundary of sexual choice and autonomy i.e. adulthood at a younger age than certain other countries and has done for centuries. All the bill does is apply that boundary to a new instance.
Of course we can all have our own views on where adulthood should begin but I’m sceptical that there’s a knockout argument there instead of mere cultural preference or difference. The threshold age of maturity is not an absolute and different countries place it at different times.
I think it makes better sense therefore to concentrate on other aspects of the bill e.g. the elimination of medical diagnosis and the shortening of the period of living in ones claimed gender to 3 months. These are more problematic in my view. Sure others will disagree though!
Andrew Wise
1 year ago
Maybe they have actually won the war … or at least this battle. When the conservatives have to fall back on a very narrow legal argument about the equalities act, it shows how captured the soft left Tories have become.
Those opposing these policies need to come out with a full throated ‘Girls are Girls and Boys are Boys’ argument – not some mealy mouthed excuse for a reason.
I think this too. In twenty years time the number of trans people will be higher and the number of pro-trans people will be too.
I don’t say this because I support transgenderism. I think we would be better off without it. I just think the fact that the group of people who support transgenderism the most, AKA Millennials and Zoomers, will one day be an electoral and opinion-forming majority. I simply think the trans lobby will bide their time and use this episode as a part of their “struggle”.
I think this too. In twenty years time the number of trans people will be higher and the number of pro-trans people will be too.
I don’t say this because I support transgenderism. I think we would be better off without it. I just think the fact that the group of people who support transgenderism the most, AKA Millennials and Zoomers, will one day be an electoral and opinion-forming majority. I simply think the trans lobby will bide their time and use this episode as a part of their “struggle”.
Andrew Wise
1 year ago
Maybe they have actually won the war … or at least this battle. When the conservatives have to fall back on a very narrow legal argument about the equalities act, it shows how captured the soft left Tories have become.
Those opposing these policies need to come out with a full throated ‘Girls are Girls and Boys are Boys’ argument – not some mealy mouthed excuse for a reason.
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Seems like the SNP not only seeks independence from the UK, but also from reality.
The irony is – if they get independence, they’ll have to veer right sooner or later: pro-business, lower taxes, reduced state services etc to stay afloat. As it is they luxuriate in a private and public economy that is underpinned by the selfish and cruel Big Daddy England.
The irony is – if they get independence, they’ll have to veer right sooner or later: pro-business, lower taxes, reduced state services etc to stay afloat. As it is they luxuriate in a private and public economy that is underpinned by the selfish and cruel Big Daddy England.
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Seems like the SNP not only seeks independence from the UK, but also from reality.
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘lose’. They might lose the legal battle but the trans cult seems to be sweeping all before it. It seems incredible to me that so many women are active proponents. The conservatives can’t even really cash in politically, because they have their own progressive trans lobby and seem unable to summon the testicular fortitude to actually fight the culture war. Perhaps in the wake of some gargantuan economic meltdown, a populist party will — Newtonian Jujitsu style — create an equal and opposite reaction….To be honest, reactionary seems like the way to go right now.
It seems incredible to me that so many women are active proponents.
In my experience it tends to be women from comfortably well-off backgrounds who have no idea the lengths some men will go to to elicit sex.I also think that age may play a part too. Many of these women may actually know young male acquaintances that seek to be women, whereas those who are older may envision a hairy middle-aged man wearing suspender belts and garters lurking around in the women’s lavatories.
Julian, you are perhaps right about your point about well off women supporters, but I think you are being too kind in attributing their support to naivety.
I would say it’s rather a function of two peculiar characteristics.
Firstly, women tend to think in herds. Hence, whatever the overall group is supposed to believe, no matter how absurd or counter productive, you support.
Secondly, and this involves more malevolence, these women are the biggest beneficiaries of the “no biologist differences between men and women” bs. Which means they get the perks of quotas and “equity” where convenient.
And their thinking is, if a few women get hurt by trans “women” piggybacking on their ideology and tactics, so be it, because it’s still high positive payoffs for them.
Julian, you are perhaps right about your point about well off women supporters, but I think you are being too kind in attributing their support to naivety.
I would say it’s rather a function of two peculiar characteristics.
Firstly, women tend to think in herds. Hence, whatever the overall group is supposed to believe, no matter how absurd or counter productive, you support.
Secondly, and this involves more malevolence, these women are the biggest beneficiaries of the “no biologist differences between men and women” bs. Which means they get the perks of quotas and “equity” where convenient.
And their thinking is, if a few women get hurt by trans “women” piggybacking on their ideology and tactics, so be it, because it’s still high positive payoffs for them.
It seems incredible to me that so many women are active proponents.
In my experience it tends to be women from comfortably well-off backgrounds who have no idea the lengths some men will go to to elicit sex.I also think that age may play a part too. Many of these women may actually know young male acquaintances that seek to be women, whereas those who are older may envision a hairy middle-aged man wearing suspender belts and garters lurking around in the women’s lavatories.
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘lose’. They might lose the legal battle but the trans cult seems to be sweeping all before it. It seems incredible to me that so many women are active proponents. The conservatives can’t even really cash in politically, because they have their own progressive trans lobby and seem unable to summon the testicular fortitude to actually fight the culture war. Perhaps in the wake of some gargantuan economic meltdown, a populist party will — Newtonian Jujitsu style — create an equal and opposite reaction….To be honest, reactionary seems like the way to go right now.
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Kezia Dugdale’s views may well be shaped by the fact that her wife is an SNP minister.
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Kezia Dugdale’s views may well be shaped by the fact that her wife is an SNP minister.
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Oh good, no sign of that woke Holland git.
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Oh good, no sign of that woke Holland git.
Henry Mayhew
1 year ago
Haven’t we run out of language with which to describe rapists who become women?
Chris W
1 year ago
Don’t forget that age is important in these discussions. I imagine that the average age of UnHerd contributors is about 60. Daily Mail country.
Old people will never support these kind of things. Are there any young people out there with comments?
On a totally unrelated topic, yesterday I got an email from some girl from Oxbridge. The email was good and very informative. Yet at the end she signed “name (she/her)”.
She/Her – He/Him – (and the most idiotic) They/Them (whatever that means).
There are probably others I cannto be bothered to know about.
It seems the larger the organisation the more this incideous behavior is spreading.
I often reply to such idiotic emails – after my name – with:
”He/him/she/her/male/tall/not bad today/short/slim/not/slim/i need a coffe and a rest” – or other some other stupidity. Strange things is when I meet these people in person – none of them dare say anythign about ”my” title
She/Her – He/Him – (and the most idiotic) They/Them (whatever that means).
There are probably others I cannto be bothered to know about.
It seems the larger the organisation the more this incideous behavior is spreading.
I often reply to such idiotic emails – after my name – with:
”He/him/she/her/male/tall/not bad today/short/slim/not/slim/i need a coffe and a rest” – or other some other stupidity. Strange things is when I meet these people in person – none of them dare say anythign about ”my” title
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I’d like to hear a coherent argument from the other side. Alas woke comments on here tend usually to be just snide insults.
I didn’t downvote it, but a) I’m way off 60 and b) can’t abide the Daily Mail. But if Chris wants to throw those generalisations out without substantiating them, I guess he’s (presumably) getting what he deserves.
I’d also like to see an argument from the other side from time to time as this seems to be the one subject that Unherd only puts one side of the argument for. But as you observe, in the comments it just ends up being troll posts.
Unherd gives the unheard side of the argument. For the argument that dominates the thinking in the UK’s civic institutions, check out the New York Times, Guardian and BBC.
Unherd gives the unheard side of the argument. For the argument that dominates the thinking in the UK’s civic institutions, check out the New York Times, Guardian and BBC.
I didn’t downvote it, but a) I’m way off 60 and b) can’t abide the Daily Mail. But if Chris wants to throw those generalisations out without substantiating them, I guess he’s (presumably) getting what he deserves.
I’d also like to see an argument from the other side from time to time as this seems to be the one subject that Unherd only puts one side of the argument for. But as you observe, in the comments it just ends up being troll posts.
Using your imagination in regards to the average age of UnHerd readers is just another way of making an assumption and you know what people say about those!
You could be right about the age, but there are those of us who only enter Daily Mail country to see what they are up to and then hasily withdraw back to civilisation.
On a totally unrelated topic, yesterday I got an email from some girl from Oxbridge. The email was good and very informative. Yet at the end she signed “name (she/her)”.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I’d like to hear a coherent argument from the other side. Alas woke comments on here tend usually to be just snide insults.
Using your imagination in regards to the average age of UnHerd readers is just another way of making an assumption and you know what people say about those!
You could be right about the age, but there are those of us who only enter Daily Mail country to see what they are up to and then hasily withdraw back to civilisation.
It’s almost inevitable as a result of even a proposed change in the law in Scotland, that some pervert will get caught exhibiting himself to kids in a changing room under the pretext of considering himself to be a woman. Even just one occurrence of this will destroy the reputation of those supporting the change in law.
What a strange, and in the current extreme political landscape, barely perceptible hill to sacrifice your political career on.
I think Nicola has realised the game is up with IndyRef2, and is now just causing mischief whilst she burnishes her credentials for an international (EU?) role elsewhere.
It doesn’t though, see the Wi Spa incident in the US. A ‘woman with a p***s’, registered sex offender with a history being convicted of indecent exposure was up to their old tricks, ‘allegedly’ exposing themselves to minors. Eventually the person was charged, but rather than any kind of self-reflection the deranged left-wing media (NYT, WP, Guardian, etc.) instead just desperately tried to cover it up as a “right wing hoax”, a “far-right conspiracy”, etc.
These people don’t care at all about the consequences, no incident will be far enough for the cult to stop and think for a minute.
“up to his old tricks”.
Thanks for dealing with this.
Thanks for dealing with this.
“up to his old tricks”.
This has already happened in the US, and there have been no political consequences.
That was my thought. The BBC reported a rape of a woman on a women’s hospital ward, without mentioning the perpetrator was “assigned male at birth.”
For people to react to it they have to hear about it.
Can someone be ”assigned” their Sex at birth? I just thought ”they were what they were” at birth.I imagined the complications over gender only come much later.
That phrase is already used in large numbers of official documents including some from the NHS. It’s madness.
That phrase is already used in large numbers of official documents including some from the NHS. It’s madness.
Women raping women,
Can someone be ”assigned” their Sex at birth? I just thought ”they were what they were” at birth.I imagined the complications over gender only come much later.
Women raping women,
That was my thought. The BBC reported a rape of a woman on a women’s hospital ward, without mentioning the perpetrator was “assigned male at birth.”
For people to react to it they have to hear about it.
It’s already happening.
Lavatory assault sex offender born male
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d56968e6-96b9-11ed-91ab-4070465550ba?shareToken=93ab3814f6ed1bc9e77d94479999a675
But whenever these cases are raised we’re ignored, told ‘they aren’t really trans though’ or (one of my favourites) told that this is what men do and the changes won’t make any difference to them doing it!
The gender lobbyists and their allies feel no shame about these incidents and they don’t seem to feel threatened by them at all.
It’s already happened many times.
The media will cover it up, the tech companies will block anyone who mentions it and the police will harass the person who reports it.
I think Nicola has realised the game is up with IndyRef2, and is now just causing mischief whilst she burnishes her credentials for an international (EU?) role elsewhere.
It doesn’t though, see the Wi Spa incident in the US. A ‘woman with a p***s’, registered sex offender with a history being convicted of indecent exposure was up to their old tricks, ‘allegedly’ exposing themselves to minors. Eventually the person was charged, but rather than any kind of self-reflection the deranged left-wing media (NYT, WP, Guardian, etc.) instead just desperately tried to cover it up as a “right wing hoax”, a “far-right conspiracy”, etc.
These people don’t care at all about the consequences, no incident will be far enough for the cult to stop and think for a minute.
This has already happened in the US, and there have been no political consequences.
It’s already happening.
Lavatory assault sex offender born male
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d56968e6-96b9-11ed-91ab-4070465550ba?shareToken=93ab3814f6ed1bc9e77d94479999a675
But whenever these cases are raised we’re ignored, told ‘they aren’t really trans though’ or (one of my favourites) told that this is what men do and the changes won’t make any difference to them doing it!
The gender lobbyists and their allies feel no shame about these incidents and they don’t seem to feel threatened by them at all.
It’s already happened many times.
The media will cover it up, the tech companies will block anyone who mentions it and the police will harass the person who reports it.
It’s almost inevitable as a result of even a proposed change in the law in Scotland, that some pervert will get caught exhibiting himself to kids in a changing room under the pretext of considering himself to be a woman. Even just one occurrence of this will destroy the reputation of those supporting the change in law.
What a strange, and in the current extreme political landscape, barely perceptible hill to sacrifice your political career on.
I find the comparison with Manicheanism very interesting. It is notable that the three most “progressive” nations are Scotland, Canada, and New Zealand, and what these three have in common is being bordered by much larger states (England, USA, and Australia). Could it be that they are desperately trying to show that they are better than those “evil”, but more powerful, states? If so then it would indicate a form of inferiority complex, which is certainly not something that a place like Scotland needs to suffer (I don’t know enough about the achievements of the other two to comment)
That has indeed been the SNP strategy for some time. I was an SNP member in the 1990’s. Back then, when Labour used to accuse the SNP of xenophobia, SNP strategists realised that they could win over the (left-leaning) Scottish commentariat, plus a large chunk of the Scottish chattering classes, by out-woking Labour on issues such as immigration, asylum, rights and equality. The strategy worked wonders for the SNP and has been in place ever since. All those issues are of little interest to Scots (immigration is at a much lower level in Scotland), so it has not so far alienated the SNP support base.
I agree with you 100%. It became a competition between some countries as to which country would have the lowest number of Covid fatalities. When the competition was at its peak, New Zealand were the clear leaders with Australia in second place, and Jacinda Ahern was incredibly popular. Now the competition is over and the zero Covid policy proved to be untenable and damaging, her popularity has plummeted. Today she has resigned as under the spotlight of more mundane issues, she has been seen to be incompetent .
I read somewhere that it has to do with the prime ministers of NZ and Canada having done the WEF Young Global Leaders training. I don’t know if Nicola Sturgeon has been “trained”.
The question of whether Scotland (or Wales or the Republic of Ireland) “need” to suffer an inferiority complex is irrelevant. They will do anything to wind up or put down the English.
I have left out Northern Ireland as it is a nation which doesn’t seem to suffer this grudge.
That has indeed been the SNP strategy for some time. I was an SNP member in the 1990’s. Back then, when Labour used to accuse the SNP of xenophobia, SNP strategists realised that they could win over the (left-leaning) Scottish commentariat, plus a large chunk of the Scottish chattering classes, by out-woking Labour on issues such as immigration, asylum, rights and equality. The strategy worked wonders for the SNP and has been in place ever since. All those issues are of little interest to Scots (immigration is at a much lower level in Scotland), so it has not so far alienated the SNP support base.
I agree with you 100%. It became a competition between some countries as to which country would have the lowest number of Covid fatalities. When the competition was at its peak, New Zealand were the clear leaders with Australia in second place, and Jacinda Ahern was incredibly popular. Now the competition is over and the zero Covid policy proved to be untenable and damaging, her popularity has plummeted. Today she has resigned as under the spotlight of more mundane issues, she has been seen to be incompetent .
I read somewhere that it has to do with the prime ministers of NZ and Canada having done the WEF Young Global Leaders training. I don’t know if Nicola Sturgeon has been “trained”.
The question of whether Scotland (or Wales or the Republic of Ireland) “need” to suffer an inferiority complex is irrelevant. They will do anything to wind up or put down the English.
I have left out Northern Ireland as it is a nation which doesn’t seem to suffer this grudge.
I find the comparison with Manicheanism very interesting. It is notable that the three most “progressive” nations are Scotland, Canada, and New Zealand, and what these three have in common is being bordered by much larger states (England, USA, and Australia). Could it be that they are desperately trying to show that they are better than those “evil”, but more powerful, states? If so then it would indicate a form of inferiority complex, which is certainly not something that a place like Scotland needs to suffer (I don’t know enough about the achievements of the other two to comment)
What I don’t understand is why labour went along with it. Did they not foresee what would happen? You didn’t need to be a genius for that, and although the Scottish parliament is full of dimwits (of all colours) someone at labour hq should have rung some kind of bell and that says a lot about Sarwar’s abilities. Clearly the Scottish parliament is his (?) natural habitat.
My question is, who am I going to vote fore at the next election now that Labour is out of the equation (again)? Do I vote again for flip-flop man? How enthralling.
They went along with it because it appeals to the unthinking ideologue – same reason they supported BLM.
How astonishing, someone we can actually agree on Mr Stewart!
Ah there’s a lot more than that Charles!
Ah there’s a lot more than that Charles!
All the same, it says a lot about Sarwar’s abilities.
How astonishing, someone we can actually agree on Mr Stewart!
All the same, it says a lot about Sarwar’s abilities.
You ask why Labour went along with it. The minimum age for voting in Scottish Parliament elections is 16. The trans issue is the only political issue that excites that age group. They would not do the equivalent of burning their Harry Potter books about any other political issue: declining education standards, poor healthcare, dismal career prospects are of no interest to them. So this issue is political alchemy. The SNP can cause mischief, cast themselves in the role of victim AND hoover up the teen vote.
So why did Labour support the measure? Because they knew that opposing it would mean kissing goodbye to the teen vote.
Yes: the adolecent school childeren vote – you are right. I am surprised by now ‘she’ (Sturgeon) has not enacted a debate to get all senior school kids on the voting register, from aged 12!
I can understand it appealing to the 16 year-olds – gender-bending has a long teenage pedigree – Bowie, Boy George, Lola etc. And show me a teenager that doesn’t enjoy shocking his parents.
But doesn’t it turn off an equal number of pensioners? And won’t the 16 year-olds grow out of it once they have kids?
Doesn’t seem much of a strategy to me.
Pensioners in Scotland haaven’t got a clue what this is all about, so it does not affect their voting behaviour. Yes, the 16 year olds will (let us hope!!) grow out of it, but they will be replaced each year by fresh cohorts of 16 year olds.
Some of them wont be having kids if the government and medical professions go on validating their delusions of being the opposite sex. Once the medical pathway is embarked upon the health risks are huge.
Pensioners in Scotland haaven’t got a clue what this is all about, so it does not affect their voting behaviour. Yes, the 16 year olds will (let us hope!!) grow out of it, but they will be replaced each year by fresh cohorts of 16 year olds.
Some of them wont be having kids if the government and medical professions go on validating their delusions of being the opposite sex. Once the medical pathway is embarked upon the health risks are huge.
Yes: the adolecent school childeren vote – you are right. I am surprised by now ‘she’ (Sturgeon) has not enacted a debate to get all senior school kids on the voting register, from aged 12!
I can understand it appealing to the 16 year-olds – gender-bending has a long teenage pedigree – Bowie, Boy George, Lola etc. And show me a teenager that doesn’t enjoy shocking his parents.
But doesn’t it turn off an equal number of pensioners? And won’t the 16 year-olds grow out of it once they have kids?
Doesn’t seem much of a strategy to me.
They went along with it because it appeals to the unthinking ideologue – same reason they supported BLM.
You ask why Labour went along with it. The minimum age for voting in Scottish Parliament elections is 16. The trans issue is the only political issue that excites that age group. They would not do the equivalent of burning their Harry Potter books about any other political issue: declining education standards, poor healthcare, dismal career prospects are of no interest to them. So this issue is political alchemy. The SNP can cause mischief, cast themselves in the role of victim AND hoover up the teen vote.
So why did Labour support the measure? Because they knew that opposing it would mean kissing goodbye to the teen vote.
What I don’t understand is why labour went along with it. Did they not foresee what would happen? You didn’t need to be a genius for that, and although the Scottish parliament is full of dimwits (of all colours) someone at labour hq should have rung some kind of bell and that says a lot about Sarwar’s abilities. Clearly the Scottish parliament is his (?) natural habitat.
My question is, who am I going to vote fore at the next election now that Labour is out of the equation (again)? Do I vote again for flip-flop man? How enthralling.
On the age issue, it’s worth noting that the right to marry or vote begins at 16 in Scotland. Before 1929 in fact the right to marry was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, following the Roman law. Hence elopements from South of the border, which still happen today (in England the minimum marriageable age is 18). In Scotland marriage has never required parental consent either.
This is relevant because whatever one thinks about the trans issue as such it’s clear that Scottish legal and cultural tradition place the boundary of sexual choice and autonomy i.e. adulthood at a younger age than certain other countries and has done for centuries. All the bill does is apply that boundary to a new instance.
Of course we can all have our own views on where adulthood should begin but I’m sceptical that there’s a knockout argument there instead of mere cultural preference or difference. The threshold age of maturity is not an absolute and different countries place it at different times.
I think it makes better sense therefore to concentrate on other aspects of the bill e.g. the elimination of medical diagnosis and the shortening of the period of living in ones claimed gender to 3 months. These are more problematic in my view. Sure others will disagree though!
The age aspect is highly problematic even at 18 years old; studies show that cognitive maturity isn’t reached until approximately 25 years old.
However, in regard to the Scottish Bill, the lowering to 16 creates a massive challenge simply because it brings schools into the equation (which 18 excluded to all intents and purposes).
The legal implications for schools, which would extend into the rest of the UK, are enough on their own to justify Westminster’s intervention
The age aspect is highly problematic even at 18 years old; studies show that cognitive maturity isn’t reached until approximately 25 years old.
However, in regard to the Scottish Bill, the lowering to 16 creates a massive challenge simply because it brings schools into the equation (which 18 excluded to all intents and purposes).
The legal implications for schools, which would extend into the rest of the UK, are enough on their own to justify Westminster’s intervention
On the age issue, it’s worth noting that the right to marry or vote begins at 16 in Scotland. Before 1929 in fact the right to marry was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, following the Roman law. Hence elopements from South of the border, which still happen today (in England the minimum marriageable age is 18). In Scotland marriage has never required parental consent either.
This is relevant because whatever one thinks about the trans issue as such it’s clear that Scottish legal and cultural tradition place the boundary of sexual choice and autonomy i.e. adulthood at a younger age than certain other countries and has done for centuries. All the bill does is apply that boundary to a new instance.
Of course we can all have our own views on where adulthood should begin but I’m sceptical that there’s a knockout argument there instead of mere cultural preference or difference. The threshold age of maturity is not an absolute and different countries place it at different times.
I think it makes better sense therefore to concentrate on other aspects of the bill e.g. the elimination of medical diagnosis and the shortening of the period of living in ones claimed gender to 3 months. These are more problematic in my view. Sure others will disagree though!
Maybe they have actually won the war … or at least this battle. When the conservatives have to fall back on a very narrow legal argument about the equalities act, it shows how captured the soft left Tories have become.
Those opposing these policies need to come out with a full throated ‘Girls are Girls and Boys are Boys’ argument – not some mealy mouthed excuse for a reason.
I think this too. In twenty years time the number of trans people will be higher and the number of pro-trans people will be too.
I don’t say this because I support transgenderism. I think we would be better off without it. I just think the fact that the group of people who support transgenderism the most, AKA Millennials and Zoomers, will one day be an electoral and opinion-forming majority. I simply think the trans lobby will bide their time and use this episode as a part of their “struggle”.
I think this too. In twenty years time the number of trans people will be higher and the number of pro-trans people will be too.
I don’t say this because I support transgenderism. I think we would be better off without it. I just think the fact that the group of people who support transgenderism the most, AKA Millennials and Zoomers, will one day be an electoral and opinion-forming majority. I simply think the trans lobby will bide their time and use this episode as a part of their “struggle”.
Maybe they have actually won the war … or at least this battle. When the conservatives have to fall back on a very narrow legal argument about the equalities act, it shows how captured the soft left Tories have become.
Those opposing these policies need to come out with a full throated ‘Girls are Girls and Boys are Boys’ argument – not some mealy mouthed excuse for a reason.
Seems like the SNP not only seeks independence from the UK, but also from reality.
The irony is – if they get independence, they’ll have to veer right sooner or later: pro-business, lower taxes, reduced state services etc to stay afloat. As it is they luxuriate in a private and public economy that is underpinned by the selfish and cruel Big Daddy England.
The irony is – if they get independence, they’ll have to veer right sooner or later: pro-business, lower taxes, reduced state services etc to stay afloat. As it is they luxuriate in a private and public economy that is underpinned by the selfish and cruel Big Daddy England.
Seems like the SNP not only seeks independence from the UK, but also from reality.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘lose’. They might lose the legal battle but the trans cult seems to be sweeping all before it. It seems incredible to me that so many women are active proponents. The conservatives can’t even really cash in politically, because they have their own progressive trans lobby and seem unable to summon the testicular fortitude to actually fight the culture war. Perhaps in the wake of some gargantuan economic meltdown, a populist party will — Newtonian Jujitsu style — create an equal and opposite reaction….To be honest, reactionary seems like the way to go right now.
In my experience it tends to be women from comfortably well-off backgrounds who have no idea the lengths some men will go to to elicit sex.I also think that age may play a part too. Many of these women may actually know young male acquaintances that seek to be women, whereas those who are older may envision a hairy middle-aged man wearing suspender belts and garters lurking around in the women’s lavatories.
Julian, you are perhaps right about your point about well off women supporters, but I think you are being too kind in attributing their support to naivety.
I would say it’s rather a function of two peculiar characteristics.
Firstly, women tend to think in herds. Hence, whatever the overall group is supposed to believe, no matter how absurd or counter productive, you support.
Secondly, and this involves more malevolence, these women are the biggest beneficiaries of the “no biologist differences between men and women” bs. Which means they get the perks of quotas and “equity” where convenient.
And their thinking is, if a few women get hurt by trans “women” piggybacking on their ideology and tactics, so be it, because it’s still high positive payoffs for them.
Julian, you are perhaps right about your point about well off women supporters, but I think you are being too kind in attributing their support to naivety.
I would say it’s rather a function of two peculiar characteristics.
Firstly, women tend to think in herds. Hence, whatever the overall group is supposed to believe, no matter how absurd or counter productive, you support.
Secondly, and this involves more malevolence, these women are the biggest beneficiaries of the “no biologist differences between men and women” bs. Which means they get the perks of quotas and “equity” where convenient.
And their thinking is, if a few women get hurt by trans “women” piggybacking on their ideology and tactics, so be it, because it’s still high positive payoffs for them.
In my experience it tends to be women from comfortably well-off backgrounds who have no idea the lengths some men will go to to elicit sex.I also think that age may play a part too. Many of these women may actually know young male acquaintances that seek to be women, whereas those who are older may envision a hairy middle-aged man wearing suspender belts and garters lurking around in the women’s lavatories.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘lose’. They might lose the legal battle but the trans cult seems to be sweeping all before it. It seems incredible to me that so many women are active proponents. The conservatives can’t even really cash in politically, because they have their own progressive trans lobby and seem unable to summon the testicular fortitude to actually fight the culture war. Perhaps in the wake of some gargantuan economic meltdown, a populist party will — Newtonian Jujitsu style — create an equal and opposite reaction….To be honest, reactionary seems like the way to go right now.
Kezia Dugdale’s views may well be shaped by the fact that her wife is an SNP minister.
Kezia Dugdale’s views may well be shaped by the fact that her wife is an SNP minister.
Oh good, no sign of that woke Holland git.
Oh good, no sign of that woke Holland git.
Haven’t we run out of language with which to describe rapists who become women?
Don’t forget that age is important in these discussions. I imagine that the average age of UnHerd contributors is about 60. Daily Mail country.
Old people will never support these kind of things. Are there any young people out there with comments?
On a totally unrelated topic, yesterday I got an email from some girl from Oxbridge. The email was good and very informative. Yet at the end she signed “name (she/her)”.
She/Her – He/Him – (and the most idiotic) They/Them (whatever that means).
There are probably others I cannto be bothered to know about.
It seems the larger the organisation the more this incideous behavior is spreading.
I often reply to such idiotic emails – after my name – with:
”He/him/she/her/male/tall/not bad today/short/slim/not/slim/i need a coffe and a rest” – or other some other stupidity. Strange things is when I meet these people in person – none of them dare say anythign about ”my” title
To me, ‘they’ smacks of the Royal ‘We’ – i.e. people too special to be merely singular.
To me, ‘they’ smacks of the Royal ‘We’ – i.e. people too special to be merely singular.
Did you write back challenging her idiocy?
I hope and trust that you wrote back telling her that you have zero respect for pronoun people.
Notwithstanding which, here are mine:-
https://amoebadick.blogspot.com/2021/10/my-pronouns.html
She/Her – He/Him – (and the most idiotic) They/Them (whatever that means).
There are probably others I cannto be bothered to know about.
It seems the larger the organisation the more this incideous behavior is spreading.
I often reply to such idiotic emails – after my name – with:
”He/him/she/her/male/tall/not bad today/short/slim/not/slim/i need a coffe and a rest” – or other some other stupidity. Strange things is when I meet these people in person – none of them dare say anythign about ”my” title
Did you write back challenging her idiocy?
I hope and trust that you wrote back telling her that you have zero respect for pronoun people.
Notwithstanding which, here are mine:-
https://amoebadick.blogspot.com/2021/10/my-pronouns.html
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I’d like to hear a coherent argument from the other side. Alas woke comments on here tend usually to be just snide insults.
I didn’t downvote it, but a) I’m way off 60 and b) can’t abide the Daily Mail. But if Chris wants to throw those generalisations out without substantiating them, I guess he’s (presumably) getting what he deserves.
I’d also like to see an argument from the other side from time to time as this seems to be the one subject that Unherd only puts one side of the argument for. But as you observe, in the comments it just ends up being troll posts.
Unherd gives the unheard side of the argument. For the argument that dominates the thinking in the UK’s civic institutions, check out the New York Times, Guardian and BBC.
Unherd gives the unheard side of the argument. For the argument that dominates the thinking in the UK’s civic institutions, check out the New York Times, Guardian and BBC.
I didn’t downvote it, but a) I’m way off 60 and b) can’t abide the Daily Mail. But if Chris wants to throw those generalisations out without substantiating them, I guess he’s (presumably) getting what he deserves.
I’d also like to see an argument from the other side from time to time as this seems to be the one subject that Unherd only puts one side of the argument for. But as you observe, in the comments it just ends up being troll posts.
Using your imagination in regards to the average age of UnHerd readers is just another way of making an assumption and you know what people say about those!
You could be right about the age, but there are those of us who only enter Daily Mail country to see what they are up to and then hasily withdraw back to civilisation.
No, far too inarticulate to make any comments, sadly.
Some old people will support these things if they further their political aims. Children be damned.
Ageism is the province of bigots – like you.
On a totally unrelated topic, yesterday I got an email from some girl from Oxbridge. The email was good and very informative. Yet at the end she signed “name (she/her)”.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I’d like to hear a coherent argument from the other side. Alas woke comments on here tend usually to be just snide insults.
Using your imagination in regards to the average age of UnHerd readers is just another way of making an assumption and you know what people say about those!
You could be right about the age, but there are those of us who only enter Daily Mail country to see what they are up to and then hasily withdraw back to civilisation.
No, far too inarticulate to make any comments, sadly.
Some old people will support these things if they further their political aims. Children be damned.
Ageism is the province of bigots – like you.
Don’t forget that age is important in these discussions. I imagine that the average age of UnHerd contributors is about 60. Daily Mail country.
Old people will never support these kind of things. Are there any young people out there with comments?