SNP ready to make concessions on gender reforms (and more)

To suggest that women warriors had the gender identity of males and would likely see themselves today as trans men is actually quite offensive.

And highly unlikely. Ten or twenty years ago this would have been a story about tough courageous women. Now academics are trying to squeeze history into a the straitjacket of a new ideology.

The transViking fans should take a look at modern women fighters. I suspect they’d get short shrift from these women if they suggested they were trans:

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jul/19/came-to-fight-stayed-for-the-freedom-why-more-kurdish-women-are-taking-up-arms

And in the Guardian too.

It’s very good news if ScotGov would reconsider the lowering of the age to 16. ScotGov are keen to sell the GRC as just a bit of paper, but it’s not. Lowering the age to 16 is effectively ScotGov pushing transition to vulnerable adolescents and will act as a disincentive to engaging with appropriate therapeutical care.

I'm currently reading the chapter in 'Trans' on the way this movement used behind the scenes lobbying and stealth tactics to sneak legislation through, hoping no-one would notice, or no-one would care because it didn't affect male spaces (the attitude to women reminds me of that phrase in Succession, 'No Real People involved'). Well, women are 'woke' to it now.

I couldn't give two hoots if men need to wait 3 months or 6 months to compromise my right to female-only care, spaces, services or sports, on his own say so alone. That's not the issue.

Fuck off, SNP.

The only thing I agree on in the Viking article is that the roles of men and women weren’t quite as binary as first thought. To suggest that women warriors had the gender identity of males and would likely see themselves today as trans men is actually quite offensive. Some people need to get over the idea that strong women who don’t conform to stereotypes have always and will continue to exist.

The absolute chancers! Do the SNP really believe those slight cosmetic changes, that do not touch on the heart of the matter, will counter the concerns highlighted by the EHRC?

The snp haven't a clue. I believe all this trans shit was to bolster support from the greens to be piggy backed to independence. They haven't actually looked into it, and when they have they've pushed it aside and deliberately ignored it

Did they stop teaching alevel history with methodology or summat?

Anyone who's studying the vikings in any way at a post school level should know that there's different schools of history with which to view and interpret the past and thus offer and explore differing hypothesis. That's clearly through the trans school of history, a recent, single minded blinkered sexist version with its roots in... I'm not even going to go there.

What is it about this that makes everyone so open minded their brains fall out? (To quote the great late Berns.)

Are women’s groups going to be consulted before this legislation is passed? I thought I read the SNP had agreed to do so.

That third article does not prove Vikings were trans. All it proves is that the patriarchy documented all warriors as male in the same way as Roman patriarchy documented all disciples as male.

Interesting, if true. Obviously the “concessions” under discussion don’t begin to scratch the surface of the issue, but for there to be any discussion of concessions, someone high enough up to have influence must, on some level, have become aware of the sheer level of pushback around the issue.