In quite the turnaround Scottish Labour say the support Sandie Peggie, and would not support the GRR bill "knowing what they know now"!

Another solution would be to refocus on women's rights. Bold, eh?!

But, for example, Labour supporting the victim of sexual assault to have privacy, dignity, and safety by being assured a single sex changing room, by describing how SA is a common experience for women, and how they need some adjustments to ensure they can live, work, and function as full members of society.

So far they've still not really managed to shift the empathy to women. It's all still quite abstract. Despite the fact that everyone can see Sandie Peggie and Dr Upton as very real embodiments of the very real issues.

Yes. I've no need for apologies based on a matter of principle. This is politics, for the most part. But the fact is that an admission of being wrong seems necessary to explain the swerve and change in policy.

I'm not so worried about apologies, because I tend to think they're only really meaningful as part of personal reconciliation. Apologising to some specific person you've wronged, great; apologising to the whole world as Tony Blair used to do, not so much.

The first step is to admit you've been wrong. Politicians are very bad at this. For some reason they have to pretend that what they say now is consistent with what they've always said.

But then the important point is to show your workings. Streeting hasn't quite done this, but he's probably best placed to. There are things he could say that might even be true:

• I lacked information and this turned out to be much more complicated than I thought
• I made certain assumptions that turned out to be false (eg, lots of people think you need to have had surgery to get a GRC)
• I listened to ABC because I believed they were the experts in the field, and it turned out their advice was flawed
• I didn't listen to XYZ because I was told they were fringe, and it turned out they had important points that I should have considered

He wouldn't even have to say "I looked at an opinion poll and saw how horribly unpopular this is", though I'm sure that was a factor.

The trouble with doing a reverse ferret without showing your workings is that you run the risk of people wondering what prompted this move from vocally TWAW to TWANW (at least in certain circumstances), and asking if you were lying then or you're lying now.

Fluffing that probably cost Penny Mordaunt the prime ministership - she was only a handful of votes behind Liz Truss, and the Truss people went hard after her for flip flopping on the issue. Having a plausible explanation would have shifted the three or four MPs she needed.

I don't exactly trust Anas Sarwar, but he's not a stupid man and he's got a chance to make this convincing.

Sarwar went on to say he’d taken the word of the Scottish Government that the legislation he was supporting did not harm women’s rights.
It was the sort of performance that haunts a politician. He will, years from now, wake in the night and remember the time he deployed the “I’m too gullible to be let out on my own” defence.

A fantastic part of a very strong argument.

As for what happened in conference it is important to note that Labour delegates and membership are DIFFERENT. Delegates are way more politically active and ambitious and more likely to be captured.

Thanks, yes, that's helpful.

When I was a member of the Greens policy was passed at conference by votes like this that often came down to a matter of half a dozen -or fewer! - votes. Most members don't attend conference, most of those that do won't attend every session, so the votes represent a tiny, tiny proportion of the most committed.

That makes more sense. So it's not that a majority of members back Dr Upton over Sandie Peggie. It's that the tiny committed numbers at conference and voting on the subject do so.

Okay.

More fallout from the fight.

Sarwar and Swinney must now accept the circle cannot be squared on gender debate - Euan McColm
Appearing alongside his deputy Jackie Baillie on the Holyrood Sources podcast, Sarwar declared his support for Peggie and the right of all women to have access to single sex spaces on the basis of biology. This was something he’d always been clear about. Apparently.

Sarwar went on to say that, had he known two years ago what he knows now, he and his party would not have backed gender law reform.

As if gaslighting the women who’d implored him to listen in 2022 wasn’t pitiful enough, Sarwar went on to say he’d taken the word of the Scottish Government that the legislation he was supporting did not harm women’s rights.

It was the sort of performance that haunts a politician. He will, years from now, wake in the night and remember the time he deployed the “I’m too gullible to be let out on my own” defence.

https://archive.is/g4jAG

'Sarwar's gender reform U-turn is a 'betrayal to trans members'
It comes after the Scottish Labour leader and his deputy claimed on the Holyrood Sources podcast that he would not have voted for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill “knowing what we know now”.
But a conference motion which backed guidance on single-sex spaces in schools was rejected, causing a row between party members.
Duncan Hothersall, who runs the Scottish Labour Against Bigotry group told The Herald on Sunday: “The U-turn on gender recognition reform is just a betrayal. To say that any facts have been changed since that is a nonsense.
“If this is just about trying to tidy up a really difficult area of policy, fair enough, but talk to people, talk to LGBT and to trans people.”
He said yesterday’s motion rejection showed “the leadership didn’t have the membership with it”.
Mr Sarwar should “apologise” for the U-turn and move on, he said.

https://archive.is/97zeH

The Sandie Peggie case has helped Anas Sarwar grow a pair when it comes to gender self-ID
The Peggie case is the very embodiment of the gender woo-woo that has inculcated our public sector landscape as the so-called Stonewall law became accepted as fact. I shouldn’t have to tell the leader of the Scottish Labour Party that the institutional capture on gender self-ID had already happened. Practice had leapt ahead of the law long before MSPs passed the GRR. And it had been championed and legitimised by a then first minister who repeated the mantra that ‘trans women are women’ with a maniacal fervour – and no debate – that meant those around her just accepted fantasy as fact. And I’m looking at you, John Swinney, given you say you have no regrets.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,the-sandie-peggie-case-has-helped-anas-sarwar-grow-a-pair-when-it-comes-to-gender-selfid

As I posted up thread check the details Jackie Ballie [deputy leader] went and had a photo opp and conversation with LWD. Unthinkable a few years ago. I imagine it was more than a bit awkward. Was an apology made .. who knows. It has to come in some form though.

The Streeting path is optimum. Obviously for him the fact as soon as he showed sides of switching he was targeted with homophobic stuff and the TAs teamed up with Gaza types to try and get him defeated in his seat it was a rapid shift. I think he is pretty fully peaked he is just being civil for political purposes. He read and understood Cass. He knows long term the TA stuff is going to be a disaster, but more than that he knows it is wrong and gay men like him are being targeted.

As for what happened in conference it is important to note that Labour delegates and membership are DIFFERENT. Delegates are way more politically active and ambitious and more likely to be captured.
Same as what happened in Unison. The active delegates are captured ordinary members probably do not what is going on, but most would stand with Peggie.

There is still a lot of policy of no debate at local level in some local parties. Others are controlled by LWD supporters especially in Scotland. The Scottish Women's Conference became LWD friendly a few years back and keeps passing gender crit motions . What we are seeing is the further development of vicious civil war inside Labour over Gender.

With the Scottish leadership flipping this has huge impact elsewhere. It is now clear that gender is going to be a big weapon for Scottish Labour in 2026 to attack SNP from one side and the Greens and Lib Dems from another. To do that the leadership needs to address and debate with membership and convert them. Otherwise Reform and the Tories will say Labour members still hate women.

One showdown will be the Scottish Conference 2026 next year in the runup to the election. Have no doubt the women's conference will put forward another contentious motion. So Sarwar has to do something. Either fight to get motion passed or look absurd going into the election. He has a year to sort something out. If he is sensible that means mobilising in local parties to get a more prowomen position and delegates elected.

All of this has implications elsewhere. The arrival of Labour LGB a week or so ago adds fuel to the conflict. What are Welsh Labour going to do? LWD are mobilising to try and shift opinion inside the national Labour women's conference.

It is only going to get more chaotic.

Why is anyone worrying about giving politicians a golden bridge on this issue? We demand (and get) their metaphorical heads for the most minor peccadillo, that's the nature of the job. Women have been raped, abused, beaten up, hounded out of jobs and public life as a direct result of this policy. It is serious. In fretting about giving them another chance after having proven themselves utterly stupid, craven and useless at best and downright dangerous at worst we're just sending the message that it wasn't important and we don't matter, they can do what they want to us with no real consequences. I think my rights are just a bit more important than an expense scandal. Get them out, replace with someone better. That's politics.

Completely agree. No wonder Labour are battling their members on this now, after years of pandering to the bullshit. It will be interesting to see if they can turn it around. I think they can now see they need to if they want to get elected. I also hope that even those who have only flip flopped on this because they can finally see the tide turning will start to realise just how impossible and damaging this ideology is. Recent high profile cases obviously help with that. So people might start switching sides because they realise it is politic, but as the nonsense continues the penny will eventually drop that a fully TRA approved approach really is untenable, in part because whatever you do, it will never be enough. I suspect Wes Streeting has long since realised this.

To offer or allow a "golden bridge" means to offer a way for an opponent to retreat from a conflict rather than feel they have no option but to fight to the death, or a way to change their stance on an issue rather than feel that they have no choice but to adhere rigidly to their original position.

Based on a maxim in Sun Tzu's 'Art of War'.

What is the Golden Bridge? I am behind the times and have only just found out that pink and blue are the colours of the trans movement.

As for the politicians' change of mind - expediency and votes come to mind.

Perfectly put.

They need to show their working.

This is key. I would love to hear Wes Streeting on this. Yes, his apology was clear and, apart from saying the phrase "trans child" (FFS 🤬 I'm still waiting for him to drop that one), he's been saying things that make sense since then and it took guts to do it.

However, unless he is clear to party members on why he had a change of heart/mind, they are missing out on vital information that might help them. Perhaps his was a personal realisation that what he previously thought was helpful for LGB people like himself was actually causing a lot of harm? If so, let's hear this please.

Are there any Scottish politicians (of any party) who have a history of having been vocally TWAW and are now clearly TWANW? If so, hopefully some of them would be prepared to share their peaking journey. TBF, I would hope a Westminster politician sharing theirs might also have an impact in Scotland - when some politicians in Holyrood tried to argue that the Cass Report was irrelevant in Scotland they were quickly put back in their box! We might be different nations but we're not different species 😂

Yes, an apology would clear the ground.

As far as I can see, most Labour members are still very much in favour of women being forced to share changing rooms with men if the men are very unhappy about changing with other men.

So the leadership are fighting the members on this.

Having mouthed absurd speeches about the most marginalised for years, though, you could forgive members for not understanding where this sudden handbrake turn in policy has come from.

They need to show their working.

Why are they supporting Nurse Peggie all of a sudden? Ten minutes ago Nandy was saying rapists should go in womens jails if they wanted to, Starmer was spluttering that a small number of women do have penises, and Streeting was spearheading a witch hunt for wrong thinking women.

Now they want to reverse all of that without setting out why. I don't think it'll.work. Party members think they're just pandering to non members, and non members think they're insincere.

An apology, and an explanation that women are human beings with rights, may be a good start.

To add: I remember Gillian Keegan doing something similar regarding a false start... She then lost her seat so we'll never know if she would have attempted a reboot.

I'm assuming she had to be helped a lot by those around her (it's notable that the signature on the schools' draft Gender Questioning Children guidance was Kemi Badenoch's, despite Keegan being the education secretary) to get to the point where she eventually said TWANW. However, she prefixed this statement with "I've always been clear that", which had the unfortunate effect of exposing her newly found "clarity" for exactly what it was... meaningless. So when she then went on Radio 4 and started saying that TWANW and explaining that she had always assumed that all TW had had "the op" it wasn't a massive surprise. In other words for her TWANW until they have an op, at which point they become one. Yes, she had one foot on the bridge but with "clarity" like that it would have been a very long crossing. She'd have been better off saying she was still getting her head around it all, and that she also couldn't understand the GRA's position on it IMO. I'd have respected her for that. It would have come across as a strength, not a weakness, because the law doesn't make sense. Instead, her "clarity" simply showed that she didn't make sense.

Edited to correct one of my "TWANW" points, where I accidentally missed the all important N out!

Fully agree.

Obviously there is no "right" way to step onto and then cross the golden bridge. However, Wes Streeting's approach is by far the cleanest option: say "I was wrong to say that TWAW" and apologise for having been. Then everything you say after that point comes from the tone of this clear first step. Very few people (possibly nobody?) goes from completely TWAW to full peak in one swift move, so even after stepping onto the golden bridge people are still likely to say things that don't make sense. However, the clarity of that first step with "I was wrong" makes a huge difference.

It also helps people to contextualise the receipts from prior to this point. Again, Wes Streeting is a good example. Nobody has forgotten his involvement in the FB group that effectively witch-hunted women who dared to say that there were 2 sexes and that this is sometimes important in laws etc. However, "I was wrong" goes a long way. IIRC, Rosie Duffield said that he has apologised to her directly - presumably this FB group was part of that personal apology.

Contrast this clarity with the Labour leaders and they have ring-fenced their "I was wrong" specifically on the vote (intimated that was Nicola Sturgeon's fault, not theirs) and then suggested that they couldn't possibly have known then what they know now. Crossing the golden bridge with that particular first step means that they will soon be making as little or as much sense as John Swinney on it all, trying to navigate a "compromise" and arguing the case for single sex spaces that can be identified into. Hopefully they will realise that this was a false start and that they can retake that first step.

Edited for clarity.

https://www.labourinternational.net/diversity/women/

Just under half of Labour members are women, according to that post.

As far as I can make out, the change towards protecting women's rights is coming from the top down.

I wonder what the sex ratio is for.Labour party members.

I'm all over the place regarding Labour Women's Declaration. Mostly I really admire them and wish I had their resilience and optimism. But sometimes - and I'm afraid this weekend is one of them - I look at them and I think, 'Have you no dignity?'

Part of me is firmly gritting her teeth at the reverse ferrets but my calm, rational side keeps saying 'golden bridge'. Hopefully the Westminster mob will be watching, learning and practising their 180 turns.

'It also follows a similar debate at last year’s conference, which saw delegates vote down a motion which had urged it to “acknowledge the principle of women’s sex-based rights”, despite most Constituency Labour Party delegates and the Scottish Labour women’s conference supporting that motion.'

I find the disconnect confusing. Who is voting against the motions? Members? But the women's conference supported it? So is it the 'for the men, not for you' Labour bros doing the voting?

Yet the motion to protect single sex spaces was voted down?

Scottish Labour Women's Declaration stall was very popular

We've been having a great time at our #LWDScotLab25 stall. Lots of Scottish Labour MPs, MSPs, councillors and members have stopped by to chat. Good to talk to Jackie Ballie n[Deputy leader] about how the party needs to address organisational capture. Come and say hello and collect our info!

Significant Article reports on the LWD event at conference which was very busy and made important points.

Schools could face Sandie Peggie-style legal dispute -- Herald
Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, said: "The guidance in schools is non-statutory and there will at some point be a case against the local authority in a school and I think they will lose it.
"That is expensive and you do not want it. It just takes on parent to do that."
Speaking at a Labour Women's Declaration fringe on Saturday morning, she added: "This is an open goal for attacking the SNP. It's there for the taking."
https://archive.is/Dry7Z

Major article from The Times looks at the big implications of what is happening for SNP and Labour:

How trans rights took over Scottish politics — and aren’t going away

Nicola Sturgeon’s seemingly innocuous pledge to protect the LGBTQ+ community took down two first ministers and became a defining political row

Last week Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie, leader and deputy leader of Scottish Labour, revealed that they regretted their votes for the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. If they wished to be thanked for this volte-face, they were swiftly disabused: their concerns, while welcome, were too little too late. “Anas does not owe apologies to women like me” said Johann Lamont, the former Labour leader and outspoken critic of the party’s stance on gender issues. “He owes them to women who lobbied MSPs, who turned up at surgeries, who wrote letters, who demonstrated — and who were ignored as they said the things we now see to be true. So the apology is to them for not listening.”
https://archive.is/8IqiS

Statement from LWD Scotland about motion from Glasgow Cathcart CLP at Scottish Conference
https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/statement-from-lwd-scotland-about-motion-from-glasgow-cathcart-clp-at-scottish-conference/

Like so much lately, it's funny, but it's not.

I haven't seen this one for a while but it's such a great sketch 😂

I'm not in Scotland, so my where I live is not specifically affected by what's covered in it.. until the last bit of course.. "willy snippers for the little nippers".... yup 😬 Bridget Phillipson, please sort that out.

Someone pointed out on the thread I first saw this on that "Beth" is written on the sign as a mnemonic behind the Patrick Harvie character. Obviously that's OG Beth. But quite topical for now too I should think.

I don't know how Shaunie Boy got him to agree to appear in those skits😄