Main Edition
US
FR
March 28, 2023 - 10:51am
At first sight, just over 26,000 voters have delivered a gift to Labour this week. That was the tally for Humza Yousaf, easily the weakest candidate in the SNP leadership election, who had to rely on second preferences to defeat his rivals. The then-justice minister unaccountably failed to win outright in the first round despite having wooed women members by holding up a giant pink heart.
Yousaf’s election as First Minister today should be an open goal for Labour. He supports Nicola Sturgeon’s unpopular gender reforms and one of his first actions was to announce that he intends to challenge the UK Government’s decision to veto the legislation. Pink hearts and men who claim to be women — poor old Scotland is now in the hands of a captured dinosaur.
Wait a minute, though. Who is this, just a couple of months ago, banging on about “removing the inhumanities of the process of obtaining a GRC”? (Getting a gender recognition certificate costs a fiver and doesn’t even involve having to appear before a panel, but that’s for another day.) Who whipped his MSPs to vote for the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, even though it would have passed comfortably if they abstained?
It’s the leader of Scottish Labour, Anas Sarwar, who is now a major obstacle to Sir Keir Starmer’s attempts to quietly ditch his own reckless commitment two years ago to introduce self-ID. Sarwar was keen to push the bill into law, even though Labour amendments to prevent rapists abusing the legislation were rejected.
Earlier this year, both Labour leaders moved quickly to quell suggestions of a rift in the party, with Sarwar saying, “How Keir decides what the law looks like in other parts of the UK is absolutely a matter for the UK party.” Though the Scottish leader maintained that they agreed about the protection of single-sex spaces, Starmer is facing pressure from within his own party to change tack.
Yousaf may see challenging the UK Government’s Section 35 order as a way of increasing support for independence. But it means that self-ID is back at the heart of Scottish and Westminster politics, and that’s the last thing Starmer wants as a general election gets closer. He knows that the ‘what is a woman?’ question will be thrown at him every day during the campaign, holding him up to ridicule.
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.
SubscribeJoan I hope you are right about the general public seeing through the trans activists who bully any who stand in their way literally or metaphorically. It’s impossible to have a reasoned discussion in the current climate.
Joan I hope you are right about the general public seeing through the trans activists who bully any who stand in their way literally or metaphorically. It’s impossible to have a reasoned discussion in the current climate.
I notice that the only party to not whip their MSPs and allow a free vote was the Scottish Tories. Why does Ms Smith not mention this?
I notice that the only party to not whip their MSPs and allow a free vote was the Scottish Tories. Why does Ms Smith not mention this?
If the general public gets its informatiion from BBC on-line they may get a problem. I put in a general search with the following terms Kellie-Jay Keen, Posie Parker, “let women speak”, and nothing came up. The incident is not to be seen on the BBC, so unless people go to other news outlets they will not see it. Maybe it was there and they had to take it down, maybe I haven’t put in the right search terms – I do hope it is one of those and not some form of news black-out.
Widely reported on GB News last night.
But many people still go to the BBC for news, GB News still lags significantly.
But many people still go to the BBC for news, GB News still lags significantly.
The BBC does not cover anything that does not fit the narrative.
Widely reported on GB News last night.
The BBC does not cover anything that does not fit the narrative.
If the general public gets its informatiion from BBC on-line they may get a problem. I put in a general search with the following terms Kellie-Jay Keen, Posie Parker, “let women speak”, and nothing came up. The incident is not to be seen on the BBC, so unless people go to other news outlets they will not see it. Maybe it was there and they had to take it down, maybe I haven’t put in the right search terms – I do hope it is one of those and not some form of news black-out.
Why is my comment “awaiting for approval”? The correct English is “awaiting approval”.
Why is my comment “awaiting for approval”? The correct English is “awaiting approval”.
I guess Starmer’s problem is not with the electorate, who have examined their own trousers and reached their own conclusions. but with the loonies embedded in his own party organisation. They are poised to erupt if he diverges from the straight and narrow path of insanity.
I guess Starmer’s problem is not with the electorate, who have examined their own trousers and reached their own conclusions. but with the loonies embedded in his own party organisation. They are poised to erupt if he diverges from the straight and narrow path of insanity.
Starmer will do absolutely anything and sacrifice any principle to get into power. He’ll find a way around this.
Starmer will do absolutely anything and sacrifice any principle to get into power. He’ll find a way around this.
Feminists wanted womanhood to be divorced from biology. They can reunite womanhood and biology. They will be happier.
Feminists wanted womanhood to be divorced from biology. They can reunite womanhood and biology. They will be happier.
To be unpopular:
Women can’t have it both ways. In the past, men have impregnated women and women have had children. Two sexes, men and women. Life continues.
If women decide not to have children or that having children is demeaning, then we could just pretend that there is just one sex – or any number of sexes. Once biology is thrust aside, the whole definition of men and women becomes useless.
But if women were to march in all towns and cities with placards saying, “We are women because we can have children.”, all of this nonsense would subside.
Unfortunately, this means a lot of pride-swallowing for feminists – we don’t like pride-swallowind do we?
Why unpopular?
It seems like pretty sound reasoning to me. Women are those humans that have babies, men are the other type. The counter that some women can’t have babies no more contradicts the statement than saying humans are not bipedal animals because some of them are in wheelchairs.
As for the popularity of having babies among women – as far as I can tell from the research, 95% of women would like to have babies. So near enough a universal female instinct. The issue is: why aren’t they doing so?
So you are another of the misogynists blaming feminists for ‘gender ideology’. Actually, the blame lies entirely with misogynists like you.
This is exactly what I mean. Thinking in the past.
There you go with that misogynist name calling again, much the same as those trans activists
When you’re short on relevant arguments, feel free to pull out the “misogynist” truncheon.
It wasn’t men who were to be heard for decades insisting that there’s no significant difference between the sexes. If that’s the case then why shouldn’t I call myself a woman.
This is exactly what I mean. Thinking in the past.
There you go with that misogynist name calling again, much the same as those trans activists
When you’re short on relevant arguments, feel free to pull out the “misogynist” truncheon.
It wasn’t men who were to be heard for decades insisting that there’s no significant difference between the sexes. If that’s the case then why shouldn’t I call myself a woman.
The biological differences between men and women may be down to the practicalities of child birth, but that doesn’t mean women need to be mothers in order to have their own female identities and safe spaces.
By their very biology, most women are vulnerable to most men. I don’t think your average feminist would argue with this. It’s simple physics. Just because they are the “weaker sex” does not mean they should not be entitled to equality and protection from the law.
Gender self ID makes a mockery of the above, and I fail to see what motherhood has to do about it. Feminism may have muddied the waters somewhat, and the term seems to cover a multitude of sins these days, but one can’t help sensing a shadenfreude like glee at some recent developments. It’s as if feminists have somehow brought this insane wokery upon themselves to some people.
Neatly put although I would have substituted
‘misogynists’ for the final two words.
Neatly put although I would have substituted
‘misogynists’ for the final two words.
Aren’t ‘women’ humans that produce eggs which are fertilised by ‘men’ who produce sperm? Biologically, ‘women’ are ‘capable’ of growing a foetus and ‘men’ are ‘capable’ of producing sperm. Hope that helps in defining the sexesb but it’s a bit of a mouthful for a placard.
Why unpopular?
It seems like pretty sound reasoning to me. Women are those humans that have babies, men are the other type. The counter that some women can’t have babies no more contradicts the statement than saying humans are not bipedal animals because some of them are in wheelchairs.
As for the popularity of having babies among women – as far as I can tell from the research, 95% of women would like to have babies. So near enough a universal female instinct. The issue is: why aren’t they doing so?
So you are another of the misogynists blaming feminists for ‘gender ideology’. Actually, the blame lies entirely with misogynists like you.
The biological differences between men and women may be down to the practicalities of child birth, but that doesn’t mean women need to be mothers in order to have their own female identities and safe spaces.
By their very biology, most women are vulnerable to most men. I don’t think your average feminist would argue with this. It’s simple physics. Just because they are the “weaker sex” does not mean they should not be entitled to equality and protection from the law.
Gender self ID makes a mockery of the above, and I fail to see what motherhood has to do about it. Feminism may have muddied the waters somewhat, and the term seems to cover a multitude of sins these days, but one can’t help sensing a shadenfreude like glee at some recent developments. It’s as if feminists have somehow brought this insane wokery upon themselves to some people.
Aren’t ‘women’ humans that produce eggs which are fertilised by ‘men’ who produce sperm? Biologically, ‘women’ are ‘capable’ of growing a foetus and ‘men’ are ‘capable’ of producing sperm. Hope that helps in defining the sexesb but it’s a bit of a mouthful for a placard.
To be unpopular:
Women can’t have it both ways. In the past, men have impregnated women and women have had children. Two sexes, men and women. Life continues.
If women decide not to have children or that having children is demeaning, then we could just pretend that there is just one sex – or any number of sexes. Once biology is thrust aside, the whole definition of men and women becomes useless.
But if women were to march in all towns and cities with placards saying, “We are women because we can have children.”, all of this nonsense would subside.
Unfortunately, this means a lot of pride-swallowing for feminists – we don’t like pride-swallowind do we?