Kirsty Blackman tweet

Sorry, forgot to attach a screenshot

What I always come back to here is, do these people struggle with animals?

Do they think there is an entire world out there in which farmers sorrowfully tell each other, "yeah I misassigned the gender of five calves last year. Couldn't work out why they weren't getting pregnant. Had to have them karyotyped by a specialist. Turned out they were very small bulls.

And btw, the noise clucking hens make is rather lovely.

Haver is more - what on earth are you on about? ( in the way blather seems to be used down south)

So Kirsty is havering on Blether. ( as I see it!)

Sorry I have misquoted:

"I had one couple who gave me the full bingo: when I talked about how it was female people who were barred from Cambridge back in the day, they said that transwomen couldn't go to Cambridge either, then when I said but the world saw them as male so they would have been able to even if they didn't feel so inside they just said that male and female isn't real, it's a construct because intersex, the lot. When I asked if they could look me in the eye and say that they didn't know which one of their parents impregnated the other - however they identified and whether or not they are trans - they yelled at me some more, then walked away saying I was pathetic for spending my time on this. I mean at no point did I say transwomen weren't women now, just that they could have got away with it when Cambridge didn't want female women around distracting the serious menfolk. Somehow that wasn't enough."

from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374728-Call-for-gender-critical-people-in-Cambridge-UK

I see Glinner has mentioned this in his newsletter.

Good.

It certainly has a certain comic quality.

Memories of Omid Dijali taking and idea arse about tit and just digging in as if his career depends on it are coming back to me.

And once again I think of Maniacmagpie's 'If both your parents came out as trans are you honestly telling me that you would have no idea which one impregnated the other?'

She does know how she gets her job doesn't she?

More extracts.

1. So, err, birth certificates combined with photo ID? What if sex was wrongly identified at birth? Also who is going to have responsibility for policing? In shops and pubs we have licence holders who have a legal duty. Who's going to be responsible for checking this? What will the penalty be for organisations who don't check?

2. Maya, there is no definition you can come up with that includes everyone you want to include, excludes everyone you want to exclude, and doesn't involve some sort of genital examination or examination of chromosomes.
   If you can come up with one, please do! Nobody has so far.

She's obsessed will the idea that you need to check people's genitals to know whether they're male or female.

Crikey, she is determined to make this as hard as possible for herself, isn't she?

How on earth does she think the human race has continued all this time if we've not been able to tell female and male without karyotyping?

Brilliant, thanks Pothole.

There are a lot of tweets from Kirsty to Maya. Here are two.

Okay, cool. So how are you defining female? No karyotyping? No internal exams? What is your definition of female that includes all those you want to include and excludes all those you want to exclude?

twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/1363932492152111104?s=19

Okay. It's a 'reproductive category'. So how do you define female in a way that includes all those you want to include and excludes all those you want to exclude?

twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/1363936205776310274?s=19

I can't see her reply to Maya, can anyone point me to it?

Blether is blather in Scots, isn't it? What are you blathering on about?

It is not appreciative. Like a clucking hen.

I'm leaning towards the 'not very bright' interpretation. When replying to Maya she seemed to think finding a way of defining women that didn't include men was impossible and therefore a killer gotcha.

It's the move from feeling that one has a personal responsibility not to harm others to feeling that if one can get away with it, then all's well.

Toilets have always been self selecting.
The argument around policing it, is as OldCrone suggests infers that some people would seek to break that system of honour. We're not policing women using the women's toilets.

Fair play to Kirsty as she did respond to Maya on the thread. Her arguement seems to be that there is no way to distinguish a trans woman from a woman and it would need someone to police genitals in order to keep same sex spaces.

She must have a fairly low opinion of transwomen, to assume that they would be so disrespectful as to attempt to use spaces which they knew they weren't welcome in.

Making the assumption that transwomen are all, or in general, disrespectful of women's privacy seems a bit transphobic.

Fair play to Kirsty as she did respond to Maya on the thread. Her arguement seems to be that there is no way to distinguish a trans woman from a woman and it would need someone to police genitals in order to keep same sex spaces.

I don't know how anyone expects this to be taken seriously.

Fair play to Kirsty as she did respond to Maya on the thread. Her arguement seems to be that there is no way to distinguish a trans woman from a woman and it would need someone to police genitals in order to keep same sex spaces.

I'm sure Kirsty is still TWAW but I hope the feedback has given her something to think about about and polite discussion has to be a step in the right direction.

Either she is deliberately arguing against a straw man, in which case she is too dishonest to be an MP. Or she genuinely believes what she is writing, which means she is too stupid to be an MP.