July 28, 2023 - 2:45pm
What happens to men who attack women in Scotland? Not very much, it appears, after a man who punched a woman twice last weekend was let off with a police warning. The decision has been criticised by feminists and the SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, herself a former prosecutor, who tweeted this morning that concerns about the caution are “well-placed”.
The man, who hasn’t been named, was one of the counter-protesters who turned up when a group called Women Won’t Wheesht, which opposes the Scottish government’s controversial gender reforms, held a peaceful rally in Aberdeen. It is the latest in a series of incidents, not just in Scotland, where feminists who uphold women’s legal rights have been threatened with violence and in some instances physically attacked.
But the situation north of the border, where attempts to show a documentary called Adult Human Female have been blocked twice at the University of Edinburgh, is particularly acute. The passage of a contentious bill last December to allow people to “identity” as the opposite sex seems to have encouraged some very unpleasant public protests. In January, several SNP politicians were photographed in Glasgow in front of a placard threatening to “decapitate terfs”. (They later said they were not aware of the message.)
Following the assault on Julie Marshall in Aberdeen last weekend, the policy analysis collective Murray Blackburn Mackenzie has written to Sir Iain Livingstone, Police Scotland’s Chief Constable. Their letter asks how the caution squares with public bodies’ obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights to protect freedom of speech and assembly. Just two months ago, Livingstone admitted the existence of institutional sexism and misogyny at Police Scotland.
Marshall’s experience points to a very specific problem, however. She has photographs of her injuries and gave a statement to police after the assault, but she was not even informed of the decision to let her assailant off with a warning. It is hard to imagine other circumstances in which an assault, in front of dozens of witnesses and in the presence of police officers, would be treated so lightly.
But this is what happens when extremists are allowed to get away with claiming that they are the victims of a non-existent “war” on trans people. Trans activist rhetoric essentially boils down to “terfs ask for it”, as though gathering peacefully to defend women’s rights is an intolerable provocation. And women are left seeking protection from police forces who, in some instances, vie for approval from Stonewall and paint police cars in trans colours. Police Scotland only withdrew from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme earlier this year.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAbsolutely, filthy disgusting. We have the entire state apparatus waging war on so-called online harm, but when a man punches a woman in the face, we get crickets. And somehow they expect me to trust the institutions that allow this to happen. Good to know the police are cowards and intellectual light weights.
How gullible are you people?
What’s your point?
What part didn’t you understand, sport?
You mean you don’t have a point.
You mean you don’t have a point.
What part didn’t you understand, sport?
From what I can see CS, your responses consist of name calling, sprinkled in with a few left-wing talking points. Ya got anything else in that toolkit?
Its called wit. I’m not surprised you didn’t recognize it.
It’s not wit, and you know it, CS 🙂 At the very least, just be honest with yourself and admit that you have some strange addiction to trolling the comments.
Are you feeling triggered, Jules?
Are you feeling triggered, Jules?
Do you know the definition of gullible? Because your comment makes no sense.
It’s not wit, and you know it, CS 🙂 At the very least, just be honest with yourself and admit that you have some strange addiction to trolling the comments.
Do you know the definition of gullible? Because your comment makes no sense.
Its called wit. I’m not surprised you didn’t recognize it.
It was you, wasn’t it, who punched that women? Or at least you wish it had been 🙂
Its been a long time since I was in the Granite City, old boy
That much is obvious. Old boy.
That much is obvious. Old boy.
Its been a long time since I was in the Granite City, old boy
Utter cr*p!
Says the bloke who’s convinced it was all invented.
What’s your point?
From what I can see CS, your responses consist of name calling, sprinkled in with a few left-wing talking points. Ya got anything else in that toolkit?
It was you, wasn’t it, who punched that women? Or at least you wish it had been 🙂
Utter cr*p!
Says the bloke who’s convinced it was all invented.
How gullible are you people?
Absolutely, filthy disgusting. We have the entire state apparatus waging war on so-called online harm, but when a man punches a woman in the face, we get crickets. And somehow they expect me to trust the institutions that allow this to happen. Good to know the police are cowards and intellectual light weights.
Well, as “they” chanted in NYC during “Pride” month, “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re coming for your children.” These people cannot be appeased by caving to their perverse and twisted agenda. They want nothing less than cultural domination. Toleration is intolerable; they will take no prisoners. It’s their way or the highway, Comrade.
Well, as “they” chanted in NYC during “Pride” month, “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re coming for your children.” These people cannot be appeased by caving to their perverse and twisted agenda. They want nothing less than cultural domination. Toleration is intolerable; they will take no prisoners. It’s their way or the highway, Comrade.
The squeaking wheel gets the attention of coppers. If feminists want to be taken seriously, they must be louder and nastier, rather like the transgender crowd, which is .003% of the population. Playing along with the scam, the news media would lead you to believe it is at least a quarter of the whole.
Unless Scotland is very different from England and Wales the percentage is considerably more that the number you claim. According to census data just released by the Office of National Statistics, 262,113 people in England and Wales have a gender identity different from their sex registered at birth. That’s around 0.5% of the population. It seems reasonable to assume a similar percentage for Scotland.
Seems strange to be downvoted for referencing data collected by the Office of National Statistics. I guess some people don’t like facts.
Here’s the link. Check it yourself.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021
That’s all very well, but what do you think should be done about it?
Facts aren’t popular with the UnHerd crowd
According to the 2022 census data 1,800 people state they are Jedi Knights.
… which, for Jerry’s info, is about 0.003% of the pop. (Actually, 0.0026). Maybe he got trans and Jedi mixed up.
Easily done as they are both figments of peoples imagination.
Easily done as they are both figments of peoples imagination.
… which, for Jerry’s info, is about 0.003% of the pop. (Actually, 0.0026). Maybe he got trans and Jedi mixed up.
According to the 2022 census data 1,800 people state they are Jedi Knights.
My guess is the reason your post is not popular is that it suggests asking people if they are gender dysphorics is the way to tell if they are gender dysphoric.
I think the skeptics here believe much of this mental illness is driven not by irreversible brain chemistry (or whatever the theory is) but social contagion, peer pressure, emotional alienation, etc etc. – all things that can be treated and ameliorated without cutting off body parts, ingesting hormones, or living a lie.
The result is that we have two different trans- problems – the one that has been around for decades in an infinitesimal slice of the populace, and another larger one that is the result of the sexual revolution, identity politics, spiritual alienation, and the relentless, never-ending, back-breaking quest to the most authentically authentic person you can possibly be.
Incisive comment.
Incisive comment.
The devil is in the details. The ONS page you link to quotes the following figures: –
A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within this group:
118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identityGiven that respondents had the option of identifying as a trans man or trans woman, yet 118,000 (almost half) elected only to indicate that “their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth”, I’d contend that only the 96,000 who chose trans man or woman could be considered (and would consider themselves) part of the “transgender crowd”.
True, that’s a lot more than the 0.003% of the population estimated by Jerry Carroll, but also a lot less than 0.5%.
Yes, about 0.14 percent. or 1 in 700.
Yes, about 0.14 percent. or 1 in 700.
There was a brilliant article about this because it seemed there were more people in Newham(largely Muslim population) than in Brighton (preferred location for gays and lesbians and the rest of the alphabet soup). The question was worded SO badly in the census that it appears many respondents misunderstood it.
That’s all very well, but what do you think should be done about it?
Facts aren’t popular with the UnHerd crowd
My guess is the reason your post is not popular is that it suggests asking people if they are gender dysphorics is the way to tell if they are gender dysphoric.
I think the skeptics here believe much of this mental illness is driven not by irreversible brain chemistry (or whatever the theory is) but social contagion, peer pressure, emotional alienation, etc etc. – all things that can be treated and ameliorated without cutting off body parts, ingesting hormones, or living a lie.
The result is that we have two different trans- problems – the one that has been around for decades in an infinitesimal slice of the populace, and another larger one that is the result of the sexual revolution, identity politics, spiritual alienation, and the relentless, never-ending, back-breaking quest to the most authentically authentic person you can possibly be.
The devil is in the details. The ONS page you link to quotes the following figures: –
A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within this group:
118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identityGiven that respondents had the option of identifying as a trans man or trans woman, yet 118,000 (almost half) elected only to indicate that “their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth”, I’d contend that only the 96,000 who chose trans man or woman could be considered (and would consider themselves) part of the “transgender crowd”.
True, that’s a lot more than the 0.003% of the population estimated by Jerry Carroll, but also a lot less than 0.5%.
There was a brilliant article about this because it seemed there were more people in Newham(largely Muslim population) than in Brighton (preferred location for gays and lesbians and the rest of the alphabet soup). The question was worded SO badly in the census that it appears many respondents misunderstood it.
The ONS is revisiting the question relating to trans. It is believed that it was sufficiently confusing (as phrased) to give pause regsrding data integrity.
The size of this group doesn’t matter. If they were a tiny minority but were in the right, then they should be listened to and catered for whatever their proportion of the population. But they’re in the wrong. That’s the point. Flexing majority muscles doesn’t help the argument.
But are statistics that record fantastical beliefs “facts”?
Seems strange to be downvoted for referencing data collected by the Office of National Statistics. I guess some people don’t like facts.
Here’s the link. Check it yourself.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021
The ONS is revisiting the question relating to trans. It is believed that it was sufficiently confusing (as phrased) to give pause regsrding data integrity.
The size of this group doesn’t matter. If they were a tiny minority but were in the right, then they should be listened to and catered for whatever their proportion of the population. But they’re in the wrong. That’s the point. Flexing majority muscles doesn’t help the argument.
But are statistics that record fantastical beliefs “facts”?
Unless Scotland is very different from England and Wales the percentage is considerably more that the number you claim. According to census data just released by the Office of National Statistics, 262,113 people in England and Wales have a gender identity different from their sex registered at birth. That’s around 0.5% of the population. It seems reasonable to assume a similar percentage for Scotland.
The squeaking wheel gets the attention of coppers. If feminists want to be taken seriously, they must be louder and nastier, rather like the transgender crowd, which is .003% of the population. Playing along with the scam, the news media would lead you to believe it is at least a quarter of the whole.
If there is a sliver of truth to the “epidemic of violence” trope, it may lie in the fact that many transgender sex workers hide their natal anatomy from Johns, which when the truth comes out, can provoke rage in men who thought they were buying the services of a biogical woman. But that reaction is not anti-trans, it is the reaction of someone lied to and deceived.
Personal experience, John?
Perhaps your personal experience has been otherwise?
Isimemen Etute, is a well-known example of such a reaction, which surely explains the alleged violence toward trans prostitutes.
Perhaps your personal experience has been otherwise?
Isimemen Etute, is a well-known example of such a reaction, which surely explains the alleged violence toward trans prostitutes.
I think this is an urban myth.
Trans “sex workers” don’t have to hide their natal sex to be violently attacked by sex buyers. Natal women who work in the sex industry are 18 times more likely to be murdered than other women of their same race and class.
Black trans women suffer high rates of violence because, at least in the USA, they have a 40% involvement in the sex industry.
Transwomen are not killed because of “transphobes” targeting them for being trans; they are killed because all people sold for sex are easy targets for predators, and transpeople are overly represented in this brutal industry.
Best comment on this thread – thanks Penny.
Your point is not mutually exclusive with his – I agree that even non-trans prostitutes suffer violence at a very high rate, but it can also be the case that trans prostitutes suffer violence at an even higher rate. I think this conclusion is resisted because people think this explanation is ‘blaming the victim’ (as if the trans person’s deceitfulness absolves the john from his moral responsibility).
But again, these are not mutually exclusive. Criminals should be punished – and both assaulting prostitutes and engaging in prostitution should be crimes. These are different crimes, but they are outlawed because (inter alia) they contribute to social disorder for everyone. Prostitution is an evil that should be stamped out – supply and demand both.
A point that I’ve tried to make numerous times in response to TRA claims of a trans genocide on social media. Studies that they quote also don’t differentiate attacks on trans-identifying individuals by other trans-identifiers.
Best comment on this thread – thanks Penny.
Your point is not mutually exclusive with his – I agree that even non-trans prostitutes suffer violence at a very high rate, but it can also be the case that trans prostitutes suffer violence at an even higher rate. I think this conclusion is resisted because people think this explanation is ‘blaming the victim’ (as if the trans person’s deceitfulness absolves the john from his moral responsibility).
But again, these are not mutually exclusive. Criminals should be punished – and both assaulting prostitutes and engaging in prostitution should be crimes. These are different crimes, but they are outlawed because (inter alia) they contribute to social disorder for everyone. Prostitution is an evil that should be stamped out – supply and demand both.
A point that I’ve tried to make numerous times in response to TRA claims of a trans genocide on social media. Studies that they quote also don’t differentiate attacks on trans-identifying individuals by other trans-identifiers.
Yep. For their demographic, they’re over-represented in the sex trade.
Personal experience, John?
I think this is an urban myth.
Trans “sex workers” don’t have to hide their natal sex to be violently attacked by sex buyers. Natal women who work in the sex industry are 18 times more likely to be murdered than other women of their same race and class.
Black trans women suffer high rates of violence because, at least in the USA, they have a 40% involvement in the sex industry.
Transwomen are not killed because of “transphobes” targeting them for being trans; they are killed because all people sold for sex are easy targets for predators, and transpeople are overly represented in this brutal industry.
Yep. For their demographic, they’re over-represented in the sex trade.
If there is a sliver of truth to the “epidemic of violence” trope, it may lie in the fact that many transgender sex workers hide their natal anatomy from Johns, which when the truth comes out, can provoke rage in men who thought they were buying the services of a biogical woman. But that reaction is not anti-trans, it is the reaction of someone lied to and deceived.
Believe all women until they criticize gender ideology.
Yes. The subtext of “believe all women” is “believe all obedient women who think and say the correct things”.
As you probably know,the term was coined by feminists who insisted that all women who accuse men of sexual abuse and rape should be believed without question.
Given the prevalence of false accusations that term has somewhat fallen out of favour.
It was always a stupid slogan. “Take complaints seriously” would have been much more sane. As if women never make stuff up. MeToo was great in that it encouraged people to report stuff that had actually happened to them, but it makes some radical feminists think that not even a jury and an open court can be trusted, the logical conclusion of which is that we just skip the trial altogether and go straight to sentencing. Absolutely nuts. And of course they’re never able to say what would replace our justice systems if they just ripped them out.
PS: I say all the above as a second-wave feminist. I have zero time for intersectional, third-wave or radical feminism.
The slogan ‘Take complaints seriously’ is great as a guideline but it has too many syllables for a slogan.
Sloganisers love a short, sharp phrase with no nuance whatsoever, like ‘take back control’ or ‘trans women are women’. No word in a slogan should have more than two syllables as it makes it too difficult to chant. ‘Seriously’ will never do.
The slogan ‘Take complaints seriously’ is great as a guideline but it has too many syllables for a slogan.
Sloganisers love a short, sharp phrase with no nuance whatsoever, like ‘take back control’ or ‘trans women are women’. No word in a slogan should have more than two syllables as it makes it too difficult to chant. ‘Seriously’ will never do.
It was always a stupid slogan. “Take complaints seriously” would have been much more sane. As if women never make stuff up. MeToo was great in that it encouraged people to report stuff that had actually happened to them, but it makes some radical feminists think that not even a jury and an open court can be trusted, the logical conclusion of which is that we just skip the trial altogether and go straight to sentencing. Absolutely nuts. And of course they’re never able to say what would replace our justice systems if they just ripped them out.
PS: I say all the above as a second-wave feminist. I have zero time for intersectional, third-wave or radical feminism.
And who are prepared to be victims needing male ‘protection’ from other males. Women who stand up for themselves and refuse to be victims are considered fair game.
As you probably know,the term was coined by feminists who insisted that all women who accuse men of sexual abuse and rape should be believed without question.
Given the prevalence of false accusations that term has somewhat fallen out of favour.
And who are prepared to be victims needing male ‘protection’ from other males. Women who stand up for themselves and refuse to be victims are considered fair game.
Yes. The subtext of “believe all women” is “believe all obedient women who think and say the correct things”.
Believe all women until they criticize gender ideology.
I am going to simply restate my consensus filter theory, that weak people (many women and low-t males) when they are presented with new information don’t first think “is this true?”, but they think “is this safe to think?” If all the screens they see every day say the same thing, that must be the safe thing to think, and so taking that position garners them tribal membership where they are safe.
So, the idea of great leaders leading people, that seems to be a thing of the past. Attempts at that are done by the so called “evil” populists, which the consensus is that these menare flawed and to be rejected. So today we’re led by a force-fed consensus, pushed down on all of the people who have been enslaved through narrative control, and what seems to be almost a purposful weakening.
Your theory is very compelling indeed. Constructive criticism: have another look at the first sentence of your second paragraph. I’m finding it very difficult to parse.
The only compelling thing about him is his need to complete a grade school level education.
haha…,brutal…
E Bevin, Keir Hardie plus many founders of the Labour Party did not complete their education, they were working by the age of twelve years of age.
Yes. They were, however, highly intelligent and articulate leaders.
Our friend above is neither.
Yes. They were, however, highly intelligent and articulate leaders.
Our friend above is neither.
As an ex-university professor, I always told my students that the moment you believe having a degree makes you superior to others, that is the moment your education has failed you.
haha…,brutal…
E Bevin, Keir Hardie plus many founders of the Labour Party did not complete their education, they were working by the age of twelve years of age.
As an ex-university professor, I always told my students that the moment you believe having a degree makes you superior to others, that is the moment your education has failed you.
Thank you Richard. I tried to repair it some.
@Richard, what is the issue with the first sentence if the second paragraph?
“So, the idea of great leaders leading people, that seems to be a thing of the past.”
I edited it. It was much worse before I did.
I edited it. It was much worse before I did.
If that’s what you call a theory, I have a number of bridges to sell you.
The only compelling thing about him is his need to complete a grade school level education.
Thank you Richard. I tried to repair it some.
@Richard, what is the issue with the first sentence if the second paragraph?
“So, the idea of great leaders leading people, that seems to be a thing of the past.”
If that’s what you call a theory, I have a number of bridges to sell you.
Is gibberish your first language or did you have to learn it?
pay me for it, and I promise I will write better. 😀
Fancy coming on a pretty polite discussion site, and offering nothing but low-level schoolyard trolling. Sheesh.
pay me for it, and I promise I will write better. 😀
Fancy coming on a pretty polite discussion site, and offering nothing but low-level schoolyard trolling. Sheesh.
I think you’re right but not, I’m afraid, original. It has long been known that for good evolutionary reasons women are more risk averse than men, and are therefore always looking for the majority view with which to align. This of course is true across populations and may not be true in any particular case.
Your first sentence disastrously confuses physical weakness ‘in women and low-t men’ because of the hormonal effect on physical development, with intellectual weakness. Which in itself is quite hilariously dim, and renders the remainder of your statement null and void.
Not sure how stupid you think women are. The mainstay of the protests against trans thugs has come from middle-aged women, who by your lights are probably even more risk-averse than young women.
Your theory is very compelling indeed. Constructive criticism: have another look at the first sentence of your second paragraph. I’m finding it very difficult to parse.
Is gibberish your first language or did you have to learn it?
I think you’re right but not, I’m afraid, original. It has long been known that for good evolutionary reasons women are more risk averse than men, and are therefore always looking for the majority view with which to align. This of course is true across populations and may not be true in any particular case.
Your first sentence disastrously confuses physical weakness ‘in women and low-t men’ because of the hormonal effect on physical development, with intellectual weakness. Which in itself is quite hilariously dim, and renders the remainder of your statement null and void.
Not sure how stupid you think women are. The mainstay of the protests against trans thugs has come from middle-aged women, who by your lights are probably even more risk-averse than young women.
I am going to simply restate my consensus filter theory, that weak people (many women and low-t males) when they are presented with new information don’t first think “is this true?”, but they think “is this safe to think?” If all the screens they see every day say the same thing, that must be the safe thing to think, and so taking that position garners them tribal membership where they are safe.
So, the idea of great leaders leading people, that seems to be a thing of the past. Attempts at that are done by the so called “evil” populists, which the consensus is that these menare flawed and to be rejected. So today we’re led by a force-fed consensus, pushed down on all of the people who have been enslaved through narrative control, and what seems to be almost a purposful weakening.
The victim should make a civil claim against the perpetrator for personal injury.
Yeah, good luck with enforcing any judgment where there isn’t an insurance company involved on the defence side.
Yeah, good luck with enforcing any judgment where there isn’t an insurance company involved on the defence side.
The victim should make a civil claim against the perpetrator for personal injury.
When I was a bar man in Amsterdam I witnessed a fight between two trannies. They fought like men but the manicured nails, botoxed lips, and lavish make-up gave it a really gay-sinister air.
This never happened.
This never happened.
When I was a bar man in Amsterdam I witnessed a fight between two trannies. They fought like men but the manicured nails, botoxed lips, and lavish make-up gave it a really gay-sinister air.
How are the guidelines not publicly available under FOI? Did they constitute private legal advice? If not, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn’t be disclosed to the public.
How are the guidelines not publicly available under FOI? Did they constitute private legal advice? If not, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn’t be disclosed to the public.
Transfascism.
Sounds like the man was simply engaging in aggressive negotiations.
It’s obvious that the discourse is dominated by trans-women and their supporters. They will continue to chip away at the protectionist measures that are currently being erected in the hope of restricting rights to the so-called “pure females.” Older women and, ironically, radical feminists will continue to fight for what they see as their historical female privileges that date from the days of chivalry but they will eventually by outnumbered by a new generation with very different views. Their male fellow travellers will eventually realise their status as useful idiots campaigning against their own sex. The old will pass away and radical feminism is increasingly viewed as toxic. Change is inevitable.
Sounds like the man was simply engaging in aggressive negotiations.
It’s obvious that the discourse is dominated by trans-women and their supporters. They will continue to chip away at the protectionist measures that are currently being erected in the hope of restricting rights to the so-called “pure females.” Older women and, ironically, radical feminists will continue to fight for what they see as their historical female privileges that date from the days of chivalry but they will eventually by outnumbered by a new generation with very different views. Their male fellow travellers will eventually realise their status as useful idiots campaigning against their own sex. The old will pass away and radical feminism is increasingly viewed as toxic. Change is inevitable.