Ghost Ship Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 Is The Guardian right to say that it's the first time a Scottish Act has been referred back to the Scottish Parliament under s35 of the Scotland Act 1998? Didn't it also happen with their proposed Bill on the UN Convention on the Rights of Children a couple of years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 16, 2023 Author Share Posted January 16, 2023 I think it's a constitutional 'first' but don't quote me on that. What is the mood in Holyrood, I wonder. And how the man on the Springburn omnibus sees it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 Most Scots aren't stupid. This will turn out to be Sturgeon's downfall and it's well overdue. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 On 1/16/2023 at 6:34 PM, quilp said: More good news. UK blocks Scotland's/Sturgeon's fancy... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/16/rishi-sunak-blocks-scotlands-gender-recognition-legislation Sturgeons only goal is Independence. She knew this would be blocked and will use it to stir up the divide using the rhetoric the big bad English are keeping us down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 (edited) 22 hours ago, thommo2010 said: Sturgeons only goal is Independence. She knew this would be blocked and will use it to stir up the divide using the rhetoric the big bad English are keeping us down. Seems she has scored an own goal. If she intended this to show that Scotland is a grown up nation, capable of making its own rational decisions on such matters then surely this has only demonstrated that they are not And most people will see that for what it is. Using the trans issue to just flex her muscles is truly disgraceful. Edited January 19, 2023 by The Voice of Reason Last paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted January 26, 2023 Share Posted January 26, 2023 (edited) On 1/18/2023 at 9:20 PM, The Voice of Reason said: Seems she has scored an own goal. Sturgeon has been made to look stupid with this case landing in court so soon after https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64388669 It’s insane to lock up a proven rapist with women. Although personally I think the inmate should be made to take it as a challenge of commitment to their chosen gender and if she’s happy to have her cock and balls off in the next week or so she should be allowed to stay in a female prison. Edited January 26, 2023 by offshoremanxman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Ship Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 On 1/12/2023 at 5:11 PM, John Wright said: The problem is that the writer of the article confuses biological gamete determined sex with social construct gender. And ignores that someone of male gender identity but female biological sex may have a vagina and menstruate. It May sound clumsy, and perhaps we are still developing the correct inclusive terminology. That doesn’t make it any the less important or correct. But the writer doesn't confuse biological sex with gender, do they? They are making the point that New Scientist, by following some presumably well-intended but misguided editorial policy to be inclusive, ends up performing aimless verbal gymnastics so as not to upset a small group of trans-men who ovulate (or trans-women who don't). And in so doing NS ends up reporting scientific papers using terms that the original researchers wouldn't use themselves. That isn't confusing sex with gender. Indeed the writer says as much herself: "Essentially, New Scientist is blithely misreporting published research to remove any implication of two sexes in humans. Presumably the purpose of these scientifically inaccurate linguistic gymnastics is to include those with alternative gender identities without causing offence." Doesn't that show clearly that the writer is not confusing biological sex with gender? Also I don't see anything in the article that indicates that the writer is ignoring that "... someone of male gender identity but female biological sex may have a vagina and menstruate." Rather they are saying that for the purposes of the research it is irrelevant what gender a "person" who ovulates identifies as, and that it is just daft to substitute a less specific term like "person" or "people" for the more specific term "women". I'd have to say that from most of the stuff that I've read about the "trans" debate, it's more often than not trans activists who make the error of confusing sex with gender (or using the terms interchangeably) or even make the claim that sex is a less important concept than gender, or is even non-existent. As regards terminology I agree that it is very confusing when "people" can use the terms men/women and male/female to refer to both sex and/or gender without clearly specifying which one they mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Ship Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 (edited) On 11/23/2022 at 11:38 PM, Ghost Ship said: If it isn't "...too much work..." for you*, could you put up some links demonstrating where she has actually made verifiable "... comments about eradicating trans people..." rather than simply you saying that she has? I'm honestly interested in reading them - assuming she has actually made such comments. * You don't need to "... pull up every single video, live stream or interview of hers and go through each one and post them here... ". I'd be happy to read a single verifiable quote where she supports "eradicating trans people", which seems to be what you are implying she has said. (Otherwise why link her by association with "comments about eradicating trans people"?) Can you do so? To my disappointment I never actually got an answer to this question - which perhaps isn't surprising as I didn't think the comments alleged had ever been made. I also see that all of the talk (or threats) of violence and "eradication" and "destruction" is actually directed at women from trans-activists, and not the other way round: Scottish politicians and JK Rowling voice anger over 'decapitate terfs' sign at pro-trans rally in Glasgow | UK News | Sky News Edited January 27, 2023 by Ghost Ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, offshoremanxman said: Sturgeon has been made to look stupid with this case landing in court so soon after https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64388669 It’s insane to lock up a proven rapist with women. Although personally I think the inmate should be made to take it as a challenge of commitment to their chosen gender and if she’s happy to have her cock and balls off in the next week or so she should be allowed to stay in a female prison. Bryson was never going to be put with women prisoners. All prisoners are assessed, and if they are a risk to other women they are placed in segregation. But it was a good excuse to fuel hate I suppose. Edited January 27, 2023 by HeliX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 6 hours ago, HeliX said: Bryson was never going to be put with women prisoners. All prisoners are assessed, and if they are a risk to other women they are placed in segregation. But it was a good excuse to fuel hate I suppose. It’s fairly common to hate rapists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 18 hours ago, offshoremanxman said: It’s insane to lock up a proven rapist with women. Although personally I think the inmate should be made to take it as a challenge of commitment to their chosen gender and if she’s happy to have her cock and balls off in the next week or so she should be allowed to stay in a female prison. I read on one site this morning (sorry can't remember which) that was noting some of the other male prisoners that Bryson was going to be locked up with now. It included two others who were in for some sort of sex-crime that were also transitioning. Seems a bit more than you'd expect. Is it more common amongst sex-crime offenders? I'm no psychologist, but I could see the rationale, maybe they hate women so much, because they can't be one? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 That scottish case is completely crazy. People are fucking insane, like not just this guy, but anyone thinking he is a woman. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 7 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: That scottish case is completely crazy. People are fucking insane, like not just this guy, but anyone thinking he is a woman. Hence they should test their commitment to their new gender as part of the sentencing requirements. If you want to go in a woman’s prison fine but you’re booked in and it’s all coming off so you can’t rape anyone with it anymore, or if not then you can still wear your wig and high heels and take some hormones in a male prison and end up with an arse like a clowns pocket. You decide. The ideal moral dilemma for a rapist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 5 hours ago, TheTeapot said: That scottish case is completely crazy. People are fucking insane, like not just this guy, but anyone thinking he is a woman. Yep. The nonsense given credence by apparently rational people is incredible. Fecking great bulge in his trackie bottoms laughing at all of these idiots. It's a bloke! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.