Sturgeon at it again.

[Cismyfatarse]

I am speechless at the way in which legitimate concerns are being belittled and ignored in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon hits a new low.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-stands-firm-in-row-over-trans-rights-jjq05hdj8?shareToken=6e7506fd0b0f3f9413c653de18141662

I'm struggling to find any 'misogyny' here, Sunbow. Can you point out an example, or do you mean criticising politicians is 'misogyny' if they are female, because this would be a complete misunderstanding of what the term means.

Unbelievable. Never mind fucking Florida, Nicola, what are you doing to protect Scottish women trying to access abortions?

'“The group also identified that abortion is a highly sensitive subject that provokes strong views, which might make it difficult for common ground to be found.

“On balance, the group reflected that understanding the issues and perspective from all sides may still be a useful outcome in and of itself.

“It was agreed that the SG would explore the option of dialogue further with members of the group ...'

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20096728.ministers-criticised-consider-mediation-anti-abortion-protesters/

Can Sunbow give at least 1 example of misogyny in this thread -or indeed, this board- to back up their assertion?

Oh, god, not another vigil.

Mrs Thatcher could be described as a strong woman. Does that make criticism of her misogyny?

Evidence-free assertions are Nicola Sturgeon's stock in trade. I'm sure Sunbow will be along soon to substantiate Sunbow's claims.

She seems to belong to the school of thought that maintains that "rights are not a pie". Which involves a very faith based view that if only politics backs all the right ideas and rejects the wrong ones, everything will be in balance and some kind of Utopian society will emerge.

This is scarily naive in a political figure but seems very common these days among progressives. I suppose because their is no logic to progressivism if you aren't progressing towards something.

The rather more adult approach of trying to balance rights, maintain a political process that can deal with conflicts and difficulties, and an awareness that every policy approach has both positive and negative repercussions just isn't that appealing on the left these days, perhaps because it gives no one a clear moral high-ground.

Ah, I wish there was an edit button - I meant "there" above, not "their".

A strong woman does not sit back and ignore another woman receiving rape and death threats especially when they are both in the same party. That is weak and not a good leader.

Sturgeon is as fake as they come. She turns being a politician into a branch of performance art. Politics seems to attract people like her whose ambition way outstrips their ability (see her abortive legal "career" for an insight) and they get off on being "progressive"-i.e. shouting and hectoring people to "be kind". If you saw them in the street you would cross the road.

'Strong' is not the same as moral, right or having integrity. Putin is a strong leader, as were many other dictators across history who led their people to disaster or caused the death of millions.

'strong' is fine. I'm happy to give Sturgeon credit for being a consummate politician, although I think the shine is starting to wear off now. She's been in power too long. She was my MP before she was First Minister (worst MP I've ever had, too).

But I'm sure she is 'strong'. As ricepudding says, though, this isn't by itself enough to successfully govern a country to the benefit of its citizens. She also needs the ability to listen and be responsive.

Agree, Mangy. I find the progressive cleaving to change as unfailingly a positive thing as quite irrational. It is presumably the mirage of a future Utopian ideal coupled with a vague idea that thrashing around and 'changing' things for the sake of it will undoubtedly work out.

Your last point makes good sense, too. It's not really about making things better for everyone, it's clinging to an abstract ideology for the feelz, rather than actually facing up to the rather prosaic work of balancing competing rights.

You'd think the fact that society is full of competing rights is really quite basic logic. But it is perhaps easier, intellectually, to pretend that there is a very simple 'right side of history' and if one focusses on this imagined perfect ending, then today's collateral damage just doesn't really matter.

Sturgeon's lack of support for Cherry was disgraceful. They might not agree on anything beyond separatism and I'm sure Sturgeon saw Cherry as a rival, but not saying anything speaks volumes about her

Fgs Johnstone spoke up instantly to defend Angela Rayner

I just don't understand why people carry on voting for her. When are they going to wake up?

It feels as though it doesn't matter who I vote for, or whether I spoil my ballot, the SNP will win anyway.

They always scarper when you ask them to provide evidence of the "stomach-churning abuse" 🤔

Yes, indeed.

It's one thing to disagree - even very strongly.

To coldly ignore another human being's suffering like that is - well. It's quite staggering.

I'm sure Sunbow will be back soon to point out the sickening, vile, horrifying etc misogyny. It sounds pretty serious to me, so it shouldn't be hard to do so.

Its exactly this, whatever is the opposite she'll do!

What frustrates me about this entire debate is we never get any more than sound bites. Ok, so Sturgeon maintains to her dying breath that there is no conflict between trans rights and women's rights. But it seems really obvious to me there is conflict. So what is her explanation for that? She simply says 'there is no conflict' but doesn't actually explain why! And she refuses to say what a woman is, so we can't interrogate who the subject of these rights even is. I just wish gender supporters would be clearer and set out their arguments in full. Is it really so hard to say 'I think there is no clash of rights because...' ? Or does she think we will all just magically go along and believe what she declares to be true?

I think it also allows people to look at those on "the other side" as bad, immoral, uncaring people. Which is very comfortable emotionally and intellectually, and also allows for a kind of judgmental approach which can be, frankly, quite satisfying.

"[...] and I will argue that case until my dying breath. And that, I think, is the basis on which we should try to progress this debate.” - I'm not sure I read that the way Nicola intended!

Yep. It's a form of 'binary thinking', I suppose. Simplistic playground politics.

When it comes to the SNP, their tactic - well recognised by most, now, I think - is to do everything differently to Westminster. The census a good example. Postponed to the detriment of the whole nation, purely to make Scotland look different. Then blame everything on WM. Repeat ad nauseum.

If their only argument is that 'Westminster bad', they're not going to last much longer, I think. The energy of the independence movement is sputtering to a halt as the reality of the SNP's ineptitude catches up with their ambition. And many who would like to see independence are getting more and more frustrated.

I find myself wondering why she’s so invested in this particular, very specific issue. there is so much else to focus in Scotland, so much else that needs attention, that impacts so many more people. Why this specifically?

You might have answered your own question there.