Sturgeon getting an absolute grilling on Channel 4 News

[dunBle]

I should imagine the clip will be doing the rounds on twitter shortly if it's not already, but their Scotland correspondant Ciaran Jenkins did a really good job in a brief interview with her when she was on a tour of a TV studio today. Raised the issue of Katie Dolatowski, and got her quite rattled trying to get her to justify her comments about transphobia and racism. Should be on about 8:15/8:20ish if you want to watch it on C4+1

Can MPs or MSPs break superinjuntions under Parliamentary privilege? I thought MPs could break injunctions at least in the House.

Hasn't that been done before? The Ryan giggs super injunction ?

Was that a superinjunction? If so, there's the answer

I don't want the parliamentary privilege used to discuss Sturgeon's sex life- that makes her look like the victim. Although it's bad if she's lied, the reasons for doing so are understandable in this particular situation.

The SNP's dodgy finances should absolutely be dissected with the same rigour as the press approach the Tory party.

I think it was a super injunction. It didn't go down well with other MPs though.

But we don't know what it is that's supposedly subject to an injunction, so we don't know it's about sexuality. There have been snippets about use of or loan of £600k, none of which makes sense.

I thought the £600K had been donated by party members to go towards a war chest to pay for an independence campaign. I have a family member who donated to it and feels very sore that in their view no one has accounted for the money.

How do superinjunctions work in this era of global news? Why hasn’t the information filtered in from abroad?

I'm glad to have caused you some amusement with my posts, especially since I did just stumble across this thread in such an apparently unbelievable way... but your post, far from being funny, unfortunately highlights to me with such clarity the issue with the generalised view so many of the posters on this thread seem to hold of trans women.

I'm not going to debate further, and respect all of your rights to your opinions which I know are passionately held and come from a place of wanting to protect a group in society, in this case women.

However, I would gently put it to you that it's easy to hide from the truth of individual cases, when subscribing to this idea of trans women all as this one group who are out to threaten women's spaces and rights, as so many people on here have implied - and at times outright said.

Surely it's worth remembering / considering that this is not the case. Trans women are individuals, just like you and me, people who have their own views on everything and their own experiences - and many times who have experienced hurdles and discrimination as a result of their identity.

Your scathing remark of "poor vulnerable TW" shows that you don't consider that any trans woman could be vulnerable, could be struggling with many issues, could be just a person like yourself with a set of beliefs and experiences quiet apart from this group to be feared and challenged while they apparently try as one to take away women's rights.

I might not agree with you on this, but would always treat such an emotive and important debate and everyone participating in it with respect, and would certainly never find something that has the potential to validate or threaten people's sense of identity, safety and well-being - whether they be trans or not, male or female - "a good laugh".

You’ve misunderstood my point. It was your choice to use the word “stumble”. It has connotations of frailty, vulnerability. Used in the way you used it, it was an emotive use of language that reinforced - to me, as a reader - the notion that many T people need help and support; this notion hasn’t been borne out by recent news stories, has it? Quite the opposite in fact.

But never mind. If it helps you play the “misunderstood victim” card then please crack on.

So @LikeAnOldFriend are you just saying women should be kind and shut up so transwomen can access womens spaces without being questioned? Why would women want to do that? What is in it for women? The Scottish case has just proved men will pretend to be trans to access vulnerable women. How can women spot who is a ‘true transwoman’ and who is a man pretending to be trans?
if transwomen are not the vulnerable, oppressed minority they are made out to be, surely they will be fine using male spaces. We don’t make laws and rules on a case by case basis. That is unworkable. So either we allow every self identified transwomen in female spaces or none. Which would you prefer?

subscribing to this idea of trans women all as this one group who are out to threaten women's spaces and rights, as so many people on here have implied - and at times outright said.

Well I don't. I personally know of some transwomen and transmen who don't claim to actually be the opposite sex or insert themselves into spaces , sports, prisons etc designated for the opposite sex to which they were born. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the transwomen who insist on using women's single sex spaces, sports etc. They are men and should use/participate in the men's version.

Men cannot actually be women. Women cannot actually be men. Live how you like. Call yourself what you like. Pretend to be the other sex. But don't expect me to deny my reality that a man can never be a woman.

However as a GROUP they are all men, and i don't want men in my spaces.

I'm not saying anything at all about what should or shouldn't be done in terms of addressing spaces. I'm only suggesting that everyone involved in the debate as these things are worked out considers that - regardless of viewpoint, sex or gender identity - all of the other people concerned are individual human beings and shouldn't be generalised as one group or have their perspectives dismissed.

@LikeAnOldFriend

I don't think anyone here is saying that transwomen cannot be vulnerable. Of course they can.

But whether anyone who says they are a woman should have access to a single sex space is the issue that most of us will disagree with you on - you can't just make that a risk assessment case by case question and frankly lots of women don't want to share intimate spaces with people with penises. None of us hate transwomen, but we do hate the idea that all transwomen must be the "most vulnerable" (try being a pregnant refugee, or a woman escaping domestic violence - quite a bit more vulnerable than a bloke who likes wearing women's clothes) and whose needs must trump those of others

If, instead, you wanted to try to advocate for third spaces that allowed vulnerable non-females some breathing room and allowed females to share if they want to, that would be absolutely fine. We'd be with you all the way!

Agreed, follow the money

Your scathing remark of "poor vulnerable TW" shows that you don't consider that any trans woman could be vulnerable, could be struggling with many issues, could be just a person like yourself with a set of beliefs and experiences quiet apart from this group to be feared and challenged while they apparently try as one to take away women's rights.

As a woman i have put up with to much shit from men to at this point in my life even want to give them a second thought. My thoughts now always centre women and children. The men can centre the men in their thoughts. So I personally accept some transwomen will be genuinely vulnerable. I also accept that some?, many?, all? Who knows will be narcissistic individuals who are claiming to be women for many different reasons of personal gain without caring a shiny shit about the actual vunerable women and children they affect with their pretense at being a woman.

And @LikeAnOldFriend, policies frequently have to be designed on the basis that "all men"/"all women". So we need to be able to make a decision on whether TW are actually to be considered women, or to be women-adjacent and permitted to be treated as women in specific circumstances only.

The shorthand you see on here where we talk about transwomen generally without acknowledgement that transwomen are not all predators is (a) because we are all now pretty fucked off at being told "be kind... male rapists belong in women's spaces if they say they are women"; and (b) it's not relevant to a safeguarding discussion that centres women and protects them from groups including people who identify as women to do bad things to them or who women might find threateningZ.

Do you not understand that your "side" has created this? The scare tactics used to shut women up for raising concerns about the blanket policy that anyone who says they are the opposite sex must be - the lives destroyed, the rape threats? And it massively disservices actual trans people (those who want to transition due to dysphoria, rather than those who just like to cosplay as women for fetish purposes every once in a while).

@LikeAnOldFriend · Today 12:44

However, I would gently put it to you that it's easy to hide from the truth of individual cases, when subscribing to this idea of trans women all as this one group who are out to threaten women's spaces and rights, as so many people on here have implied - and at times outright said.

I haven't seen anything of the sort, just posters saying: "We don't know who's safe, it's not worth the risk." After all, women don't know, until it's too late. As a group, transw are five times more likely to have carried out a sexual assault - resulting in a conviction - than the general male population.

Nobody has said: "They're all rapists and perverts, the whole lot of them!"

No, posters here have used official statistics and facts to demonstrate their case very well.

The “poor vulnerable transwoman” in question is a predatory rapist who wanted to serve his sentence with a truly vulnerable group - female prisoners. I find it offensive that we are meant to ignore that.

I'm not saying anything at all about what should or shouldn't be done in terms of addressing spaces. I'm only suggesting that everyone involved in the debate as these things are worked out considers that - regardless of viewpoint, sex or gender identity - all of the other people concerned are individual human beings and shouldn't be generalised as one group or have their perspectives dismissed.

Generalised as one group funny how we do that when we segregate by sex or age or ability/disability and numerous other factors all the fucking time and the group that aren't eligible are still individual human beings and manage not to throw a tantrum at being excluded, whatever the reason for that exclusion.

THIS

and for those not understanding this issue.

Isis was playing the poor vulnerable transwomen right up until the time he was found guilty. Complaining about the students at college misgendering and being homophobic forwards isla, having issues with bt, wanting to do self defence to protect herself.

Yes his rapes were committed when he hadn't publicly announced his trans status despite knowing since childhood. (As an aside technically on feelings Isla was a transwoman when she raped). But had isla having transitioned but not yet found guilty found her vulnerable self in a situation to rape a women. Vulnerable transwoman Isla would have done so!rap

So using vulnerable in front of transwomen isn't going to work im afraid. It's meaningless to how safe I perceive myself when in the presence of someone i know is male

If you want to be kind, maybe you should think on this. It is not kind to tell a vulnerable, but mostly functional, person that they can be something they can not. Telling a man who feels unhappy as a man and has fixated on the idea that being a woman will make them happy, that they can be or are a woman, is a bloody horrible thing to do. They can't be a woman, it's not possible to change sex. Some people will pretend to believe that they are a woman but everyone will know they are not. Cruel people will outright mock them. And at times, their belief that they are a woman may lead them to believe that they can go places that they have no right to be and actual women, along with some honest men, will be left with no choice but to stop them. Which will shatter their delusion that well meaning fools, have helped them build, and devastate them.

That's not kind. It's short-sighted foolishness at best. And horribly cruel in reality. You don't tell an amputee that their limb will grow back if they want it to. You help them accept reality and adapt to the limitations of their body. And that's what needs to be done for people with dysphoria as well. Yes, they can dress as they want, engage in non-gender-conforming hobbies, careers, etc. But they can not change sex and kindness, is to gently help them accept that, while helping break down artificial limitation.

Women not being deferential enough eh?

Sorry, my last fucks disappeared long ago. This is about women's rights now.

Scott, the prisoner who on one occasion in the public domain took 11 prison guards some in riot gear to regain a situation in which Scott and everyone else was safe, is certainly a vulnerable person in some senses. And very definitely not in others.

The women in Cornton Vale are also highly vulnerable in many ways.

No one seems to be rushing around scolding the TQ+ political lobby and Sturgeon for being insufficiently respectful and sensitive towards them. Odd this sex based difference.

everyone involved in the debate as these things are worked out
I trust you realise that there is a massive hangover of rage and frustration from all the shrieking of 'No debate' and 'transphobes!' over the past few years.

We nasty terfy women have ALWAYS been up for a debate. Having finally got one, we're not up for being fucking tone-policed, thanks all the same.
**
**