Politicians respond to the SC judgement

I was sad to see it's Sonia Sodha's last regular column in the Observer, she's been measured and great.

I understood it to mean the whale is women's rights, and the Japanese are trans people.

So people say "protect women's rights" and everyone can agree this is a progressive, lovely, fluffy thing to do and no one in their right mind would disagree with it (similar to "save the whales"), but then what GC women mean by that is "protect women's rights by killing trans people".

Which is as ridiculous as it is patently false.

But even so, with its insane level of hyperbole and paranoia, it's still a little bit telling. The Japanese do hunt whales (they pulled out of the international whaling commission in order to resume commercial whaling in 2019). Japanese commercial interests are a definite, identifiable, demonstrable risk to whales and thus, by equating trans people and their rights with the Japanese in this metaphor, India is inadvertently admitting that yes trans rights are a identifiable, demonstrable risk to women's rights.

Anything from Jess Phillips yet?

Tbf to IW i don't think that's the metaphor. I think SSS are the whale and japanese people are the right of tw to use the women's bogs? But IW thinks IWself is a biological woman, so fuck knows!

So if trans people are the whales and gc people are the Japanese it sounds a bit like she is advocating killing the Japanese to save the whales?

Remember when Lisa Nandy opined that transwomen should go to a prison of their choosing!

There were some very cowardly politicians, particularly Labour ones.

I’ve been pondering that if I were a journalist, I’d like a closed question
in my toolkit for politicians such as those highlighted in this thread. But also for other situations.

“Going back to basics, and following the SC ruling of “woman”, do you agree with the need for single sex spaces for biological (sorry but to make the point) women in any circumstances?” Yes or No.”

I am sick of weasel words and ohhh but this is difficult. If they believe it is ok and in the process deny women these spaces, then -like the judgement - be very clear with your answer and tell your constituents what you think in plain English. You are entitled to think this if thst is your view, but you still have to follow the law. Like the judgment was very clear and considered, you too, politicians, be clear too.

Me too, I brought my children up to understand that we all make mistakes and sometimes get things wrong, and that is human nature, but making a genuine and timely apology when necessary, is a strength and not a weakness. These politicians just look weak and untrustworthy.

I actually think this was the moment that triggered her resignation. She must have realised that she looked like a complete tit.
One of my earliest memories in science (I was a grad student) is one of the best scientists I have ever known to walk up to another scientists who he used to have fierce debates about one specific point of their research (they got close to a physical fight at one conference) with and say "I have changed my mind, I think you are right and I was wrong" then he held his hand out to him. The two got completely drunk after that and I and another student had to get them to their respective rooms safely early in the morning. I have such respect for someone who can do that.

Well sterilising children and providing cross sex hormones and genital mutilation to adults is one way to reduce the birth rate - so maybe this is all a stealth Green plot to lower the population?

Or maybe they are just thick as mince grifting irrelevant misogynists.
Hard to tell really.

I agree, it’s as bad as when Sturgeon wouldn’t answer the question about rapist Adam Graham, I genuinely can’t understand their thinking, if there is any thinking!

I'd have more respect for him if he'd own up to the SNP/SG having got that wrong, I'd still not vote for them next year though.

‘What I’m saying is, I’m a mealy mouthed little weasel who can’t answer a straight question’

What an utter embarrassment 🤦‍♀️

But there is no shame. Just word salad. I'm not detecting a lot of squirming either. He blusters on without any hint of embarrassment. How can he stand there and say he wants everyone to feel welcome when the SNP snubbed FWS and ignored the GC views? No wonder they were happy to peddle lies to trans people - they have no shame at all.

Perhaps not as balanced as we might hope from someone who served as one of our elective representatives. Notably he ex colleagues have decided not to be as forthright with their opinions - but maybe they think the same as her based on past comments? Strange times - it will be difficult for me to trust that any politicians are sane after this.

john swinney cannot answer the question ‘do you still think trans women are women?’
when asked 5 times by a bbc reporter.

im legit surprised that the bbc gave him a gruelling interview but also the feeling of satisfaction watching him squirm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74nx8lk82vo

When Mhairi Black was first elected to parliament, I thought good for her, this will be interesting.

Then she opened her mouth.

ArabellaScott · Today 13:24

Someone tell Mhairi Black.

Oh. Who'd have expected that? A melange of trite, debunked Stonewall propaganda guff?

Sorry if already posted

https://x.com/sianberry/status/1913663725388656829?s=46

post archived and text here:

“On trans rights and the Supreme Court on BBC Any Questions… My feminism includes trans women and I am so disapponted at the court and worried what’s next. There is work to do and (like the audience) give my solidarity to trans people, and commit to working with you to fix this.“

~Sian Berry, Green MP for Brighton

An article that may irritate? - we need more warning than this

On the surface, “what is a woman?” seems like a very obvious question to answer, but when you actually try to define it, it becomes difficult. A woman has breasts and a womb. Does this mean that if a woman has a hysterectomy or a mastectomy she is no longer a woman? Women can reproduce – well, actually, not all can.

It's not that hard

The very concept of “women” is an umbrella term to include all kinds of women, including trans women. Ultimately, the only biological marker that defines sex is chromosomes.

The very concept of women is an umbrella term?

You cannot tell someone’s chromosomes just by looking at them. This is why we have the concept of gender. We gauge whether someone is male or female from a mixture of physical and social characteristics.

You'd like this to be true but it isn't.

And so it goes on....

How can you make rational decisions in government when your thinking is underpinned by such irrational ideas?