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

I think she's done for. All her own handiwork.

Poor creatures must be beyond distress.

It is a well-known fact that the whining of a frustrated TRA reaches a pitch which eventually can't be hear by the human lug'ole, but is painfully audible to other creatures (dogs, bats, small woodland creatures etc).

Whilst most anoimals can run down a burrow and stick their paws in their ears, these poor dogs are stuck with it.

#stressdisplacementchewtoysforemotionalsupportdogsnow

Do any of you ever think about how a trans woman would feel stumbling across your threads on here?

I give as much of a fuck as I do about any man who “stumbles across” a thread on a board dedicated to women’s rights.

I think the stonewall emotional support dogs were last seen in ikea

The Edinburgh branch, no less. Which fortuitously happens to be just down the road from HMP Saughton.

Maybe Lassie and pal could head down to pay the fair Isla a wee visit. I've heard she he may be in need of some cheering up after the cunning plan to infiltrate Corton Vale went awry.

I know I'm derailing in joining this conversation, so please feel free not to answer but in seeing some of you deny completely that a trans women is a woman, I wonder if you can tell me if you can accept a woman who has transitioned to a man as a man, or if it's only this way around that it's not acceptable? Do you accept when a person is fully transitioned their chosen gender identity, or never at all?

Why does it matter whether some random person 'accepts' someone, though? And what do you mean by 'accept'?

Of course nobody thinks anyone really changes sex. Right? We know that it's a fiction, and in most cases, that's fine. Nobody cares if someone wants to dress a certain way or how they think about themselves. So, I won't 'accept' them in that I can't fool myself into believing something that's impossible.

Or do you mean 'politely pretend that they're the opposite sex'?

You think both sides have equally disturbing views?

What is disturbing from the GC side?

Is this what you meant from them?

terfisaslur.com/

Why would they vote against that? Surely even for cynical PR purposes they should have??

Agree with @JemimaTiggywinkles and I think an another reason is that because the whole concept rests on TW being W no debate and no exceptions, as soon as you allow any possibility of an exception you acknowledge that, in fact, TWANW. There is a difference there. And once you acknowledge that, the whole thing falls apart. Similarly, the basis of self Id is that we can trust people to know and understand themselves and make sensible decisions about this stuff (which frankly if you have ever met any humans is pretty ridiculous to begin with 😂). As soon as you acknowledge that any single group of TW shouldn't be able to do that (eg rapists) then you need to start thinking about how we should agree who can self Id and who can't, which basically already means you no longer have self Id. I think they knew that if they allowed that amendment through it would blow the whole thing apart. What they didn't realise is that by not allowing it through they have potentially an even bigger mess on their hands. I honestly think this could be the end of Sturgeon and the chance of independence for decades when only a year ago it seemed almost inevitable.

I too find the tone of some views around this debate really disturbing, on both sides. The way in which views are being expressed seem to have become so extreme and vicious, not just on MN, but many other places, and not just on this issue, though this one seems the most divisive. I worry about where it will end. I listened carefully to an interview with Nicola Sturgeon on the NewsAgents podcast the other day, and although I did not agree with some of her views I also did not recognise the rabid woman-hater she is being made out to be by some. The way that interview was presented on some (not all) media/social media sites was also devoid of any nuance or accurate reporting. The echo chamber in action. Will we eventually lose the ability to have debates and disagreements, and will just totally destroying ‘the other side’ ( whatever that may be) be all that matters?

So let me get this straight. TRAs motto is "no debate" for years and that's all A-OK. And yet now, when people are questioning penis-havers in women's prisons, NOW you're disturbed and worried by BOTH SIDES. By the way, I'll never compromise or debate on the amount of rapes that are bad and the amount of rapes that are kind of OK - it's always NONE.

I used to think people saying this type of thing were contorting themselves into mental gymnastics, but I'm slowly realising that they are really this hard of intellect.

No! Your, you're and yore are 50% worser!

I think what’s happened is women who have been following this for a long time have got increasingly frustrated and angry that they have seen women hounded out of their careers, been thrown off social media for raising very important questions about safeguarding children from people who really shouldn’t be around children. Been told what they can and can’t call themselves even where their words reflect reality whilst simultaneously being told what lies they must use to describe others.

Those women have faced bullying ranging from name calling to death threats.

seeing the risks, being forced out of their children’s lives because they are trying to protect them from permanent harm. Having their voices repeatedly taken away.

no one listening to them. Feeling like they are being erased.

im glad women have gotten angry over this, it’s probably the most important issue facing women since suffrage (maybe even more important). People are finally starting to see why.

@LikeAnOldFriend

Words have to have meaning. If the term man includes a woman who feels like one, then what word do we use where man used to do? And vice versa? It is just bonkers to insist everyone adopts new meanings for words they've always used to mean something else. Or add qualifiers to everything they say.

Men are men. That biological sex class does not include any women, however they identify.

Women are women. That biological sex class does not include men, however they identify.

So no. I am equally worried about the idea that women who feel they are men going into male prisons, as I am about men who feel they are women going into women's prisons, but for different reasons. In both cases I'm worried about the safety, dignity etc of the females in the situation.

It is a big clue as to the nonsense of the trans agenda that no one is campaigning hard for trans men to be admitted to the male estate, the same as no one is campaigning hard for trans men to compete in the bio males category in sport. If being "treated as the gender you identify with" is an essential human right that necessitates competing in women's sports and being in women's jails if you're a trans woman, then it should be equally essential that trans men get to compete in mens sports and go to make prisons.

But like everything to do with trans ideology, the bio men are prioritised and the bio women and their needs are ignored.

Ah it’s fabulous!

That use of “probably“ followed by the contradictory “it’s a fact” as well as the nervous laugh (gives her a brief moment to try and think what the hell to say next): she’s drowning in her own BULLSHIT.

Ciaran: thank you so much!

Did Wee Jimmy Krankie say "anti race" in that interview ?

Ash Regan isn’t and is proving very adept at positioning herself as an alternate contender. I’m a unionist so kinda hope they don’t appoint a credible leader before the “pseudo referendum election” but they do have a few good non-believers. Always liked Ruth Maguire and Laura Cameron as well. Most of the rest are a bonkers lost cause.

@LikeAnOldFriend

Transwomen are not women, never were, never can be, never will be. Deal with it.

@Circumferences this is a glorious sentence.

I find the idea of convicted rapists in women’s prisons extremely disturbing too. Is it not possible to find two things disturbing at once? I am not saying that I find convicted rapists in women’s prisons less disturbing than the tone of the debate! It is the extremist thinking in some views ( and, as I said, on both sides of this and other issues) which I find difficult as I wonder whether it leads to people being afraid to have any sort of debate about anything, for fear of being totally annihilated.

Similarly, the basis of self Id is that we can trust people to know and understand themselves and make sensible decisions about this stuff (which frankly if you have ever met any humans is pretty ridiculous to begin with 😂).

I love this! So absolutely true. The entire basis of all law, everywhere, is that we cannot trust people.

I do feel for genuine transpeople who mean no harm.
BUT there needs to a blanket rule, because it is not worth the risks. And it’s not a risk I am willing to take on the future of my daughters. I am disgusted with any woman that goes against women in the way NS has.

In this regard there's an important difference you miss between someone claiming to be same-sex attracted, and someone claiming to be the opposite sex.

Suppose a man sincerely says, "I am attracted to men." That man must be telling the truth. Why? - Because to think you are attracted is to be attracted. OK?

Now suppose a man sincerely says, "I am a woman." That man must not be telling the truth. Why? - Because a man can't be a woman.

The difference is in how you feel. Feeling you are attracted to men just is being attracted to men. But (for a man) feeling you are a woman is not being a woman; it is being mistaken about your sex.

This, then is a clear and obvious way in which being gay doesn't, but being trans does, 'show disordered thinking', in your telling phraseology.

Do you see? I suspect that not. Tant pis. But that's how it is whether you understand it or not. The assimilation of trans to gay won't wash, despite all the efforts to attach 'T' to 'LGB'. Radically different.

It is the extremist thinking in some views ( and, as I said, on both sides of this and other issues)

What is extremist about believing that a man cannot become a woman, or vice versa?

Essential reading for those of us bereft of fucks:

4w.pub/a-message-to-those-recently-opining/

Yay. Awesome work. Fuck them all just fuck them all

'Will we eventually lose the ability to have debates and disagreements, and will just totally destroying ‘the other side’ ( whatever that may be) be all that matters?'

Seriously? Do you remember No Debate?

It is not women who have refused the debate and now here we are.

Women have been forced into a corner by the insistence that transwomen magically become not a threat in women's spaces once they transition. Time and time again,this has been proved false.

It is simply too dangerous to allow men, no matter how they identify, no matter how nice they are, into women's and, let us not forget, children's spaces.

Despite women shouting this from the rooftops for years, and that it would result in women and children being harmed before everyone would wake up to this massive safeguarding fail, we have been ignored, insulted and gaslighted on a scale I have not ever seen before.

So, human beings cannot change sex, men and (no matter how they identify) must stay out of our spaces. That's it. Beyond this they can dress, identify how they please and fight for their own third spaces.

Am I alone in being concerned about these emotional support dogs? These transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racists (I don't know how they find thetime) are probably also mean to animals and untoward to paedophiles.