Andy Wightman has resigned from the Scottish Greens

[cremuel]

Because of the intolerance around sex and gender issues. Not too much of a surprise - I think he’s always been pretty gender critical but fighting to keep his mouth shut because he feels he has really important work to do. But the Scottish Greens make it more or less impossible to be in the party if you don’t cheerlead every single accepted view. His loss is a real blow to Scottish politics. I’m so angry with the SGP for chasing him out.

The Greens deserve Mridul (and that isn't a compliment to either of them).

It's a principled decision. I could hardly be further apart from Andy Wightman on almost any issue (other than the need to control the proliferation of Air BNB , but this is a principled decision. The Greens will be much the poorer without him.

Imagine feeling forced to vote for males to be able to identify their way into examining raped women.
I’m glad he’s spoken out but I wish he had done so before the vote.

But behold yet more sunlight flooding in

@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons

Imagine feeling forced to vote for males to be able to identify their way into examining raped women. I’m glad he’s spoken out but I wish he had done so before the vote.

But behold yet more sunlight flooding in

A much better attitude than the trans' 'You did something once that offended us. No apology of change of heart now will ever be enough to make up for that.'

The Spectator also has a rather good piece from Richard Dawkins on scientific denial. Contains a sideswipe on 'identifying as': www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-insidious-attacks-on-scientific-truth

That is an interesting article - and maybe offers a bit of insight into why Pullman is so anti feminism. He talks quite a lot about feminism and women’s studies in that article, and always about very extreme forms of feminist analysis (science is patriarchal and hence bad; logic is a tool of men and women instead have intuition, etc., etc). I don’t think this version of feminism reflects the views of very many feminists (personally I think it’s deeply sexist). But if that is how he categorises feminism in his mind then he will obviously be inclined to be dismissive of any claims he thinks feminists are making and will consider them irrational and illogical. Of course, a small amount of actually engaging in the debate could enlighten him but he’s not interested enough in women to bother.

I’ve always found it odd and jarring that someone who is so focussed on logic and science is on the side of the feels and identity rather than the side of biological fact - maybe this is the prejudice that explains it.

A nice piece on the forensics medical bill and what happened with the SGP when the amendment passed.

www.womenarehuman.com/law-lets-female-rape-victims-select-female-forensic-examiners-trans-activists-react-with-outrage/?fbclid=IwAR2I1MhrqFuUjsINbKP8DLtmRDJUx3gaqaxXE-dE5t89eqxw-bMLU34TouM

GPEW is not the SGP but there are some overlaps...

The vote on sex/gender did show very clearly what the SNP are likely to do when faced with actual sunlight. When push comes to shove, they will always go with the popular vote- understandable really as the overriding aim is to secure independence and other issues come far lower down in their list of priorities. Ideologically, the SNP will go where the votes are.

I think it's telling that when I tweeted in support of AW I got lots of likes and RTs and nobody argued back at all.

A few years ago that would never have happened. I once corrected someone who said 'uterus owner' instead of woman and they tried to hound me out of my job.

@ASmallMovie

Really principled decision. But personally heartbroken as it's a huge loss for Scottish Parliament next year (he sadly has very little chance of re-election on the list as an independent candidate. which he must know. Making it an even more significant decision. A candidate needs huge public profile to be elected as an independent - Margo MacDonald and Dennis Canavan are only ones to have done it.)

This line from the Guardian's report speaks volumes - "There are not thought to be any trans women working at medical examiners in Scotland at this time."

In other words - we're all getting our knickers in a twist over nothing.

I despair about the Guardian. I really do.

I actually think he might manage re-election as an Indy

I think he has a chance as an independent candidate. I personally would not vote for him. This is a principled stand but there are too many other points on which I disagree with him.

I think he has a chance. He’s quite high profile and very respected. It can be done. Margo did so well as an independent that she would have got two of her in parliament if she’d been a party!

I think he’s probably got a chance too. Neale Hanvey won as an independent MP.

I would say he has a decent chance. He's well known and respected for his work on land reform etc.

If he stated that he'd support women's existing rights to privacy and dignity then I'd consider voting for him.

Party whips are destroying democracy. Independent candidates can be useful, but, it's far from easy.

Party whips are destroying democracy.

I do find it really disturbing when MPs all vote in blocks like this and don't deviate from party policy. Seems very unhealthy.

So we're at the point where s respected MP

Says that they are resigning rather than being sacked

Which they would be as they want to vote to allow rape victims to say they want a certain sex of medical examiner.

How is it an attack on trans rights to say, of all the millions of jobs in the world, this one is probably best avoided?

I'd definitely vote for him, he's fab on tenants rights and land reform. His books 'Who Owns Scotland' and 'The Poor Had No Lawyers' are meticulously researched.

I've also met him a few times at talks and events and he's a very nice person.

I've also met him a few times at talks and events he's a very nice person

I've met him once and he was quite rude tbh. In the context I met him it would have been obvious I do not share his political views but his first remark to me was unnecessary. I also wasn't impressed that he saw fit to then conduct the conversation only with the man who was in our group of 3. It was also obvious in the context that I also also had expertise in the subject of the conversation.

Podcast including interview with him here:

www.holyrood.com/podcasts.htm

(You'll have had your greens)

Segment starts at about 13:00, Andy at 19:30

He confirms he had written his speech to vote yes to the amendment, he didn't vote Yes because he'd have had to resign immediately and wasn't sure what the implications were for his staff etc. It's well worth a listen, but very emotional.

Ugh that Dawkins article. Compulsory and unnecessary drive-by at religion. Sets up a straw-man feminist, implies her views are a common standpoint despite the fact they're ridiculous. I don't actually see why he needed to target Women's Studies at all to make his point, as plenty of disciplines are the same, and after an initial jab he moves onto talking about academic philosophy more generally, so I think it's just an opportunity for some casual sexism. He's wrong that 'DNA' has objective reality in the way he describes, in my opinion - the observable phenomenon is of course undeniable, but the name isn't a scientific fact. What 'DNA' describes exists, not 'DNA'. The whole descriptive and social construct of science is a human creation, can be subjective in its application, and frequently has been wielded in a biassed, racist, sexist manner. I'm NOT arguing against scientific fact here, or against anything except the way he constantly oversimplifies any viewpoint that differs from his own.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Podcast including interview with him here:

www.holyrood.com/podcasts.htm

(You'll have had your greens)

Segment starts at about 13:00, Andy at 19:30

He confirms he had written his speech to vote yes to the amendment, he didn't vote Yes because he'd have had to resign immediately and wasn't sure what the implications were for his staff etc. It's well worth a listen, but very emotional.

Just listened to it. Interesting description of his "journey" and how he has struggled to get any dialogue on the subject. Quite appalling that the catalyst to the hoo hah around the Edinburgh meeting was actually a tweet condemning the assault on Julie Bindel. And he is very contrite that he apologised for attending.

Very clear that he believes there are two sexes, male and female.

I think that Dawkins article is excellent.

What 'DNA' describes exists, not 'DNA'. The whole descriptive and social construct of science is a human creation, can be subjective in its application, and frequently has been wielded in a biassed, racist, sexist manner.

Exactly this! It does amaze me that this continues to be a blind spot for Dawkins given that he's been talking about this for decades. Sometimes I wonder if he's really as smart as everyone thinks he is.

Interesting description of his "journey" and how he has struggled to get any dialogue on the subject. Quite appalling that the catalyst to the hoo hah around the Edinburgh meeting was actually a tweet condemning the assault on Julie Bindel. And he is very contrite that he apologised for attending.

Very clear that he believes there are two sexes, male and female.

I listened to the podcast as well and it was quite eye-opening. I hadn't realised that it was his tweet condemning the assault on Julie Bindel that kicked off all the problems. Says quite a lot about the types who partake in trans activism.