It is late and my mind may just be muddled ramblings but I need to get this out to see if it makes any sense to others...
So first of all I will say I am not a fan of Nicola Sturgeon.
Having watched her avoidance of being in Parliament last Wednesday I think and then her performance at first ministers questions on Thursday and then the comment that she had made it clear earlier her stance on the situation and todays (well yesterdays now) ask me anything news conference...
She does believe she is answering clearly by stating 'rapist'.
Not a new gender, but in fact clarifying male due to legal fact that only biological males, men, can commit rape.
If Nicola Sturgeon were to clarify if she believes they are Male or Female, a man or a woman she would be caught up in her tangled web but insisting on referring to the 'rapist' is clever word play so she can justify to herself and others at a later date that she made it clear. He is male as only Men can legally commit rape.
Nicola Sturgeon can change her words up by stating "she (Isla/Adam) identifies as a woman" while not giving their solicitor the ammunition to quash the conviction as is the law in any way sees them as legally female/woman the conviction of rape couldn't stand?
Perhaps damage control it is better for Nicola Sturgeon to play word games and look silly never seeming to answer the question but this is better all round than a two time rapist being released due to a conviction being quashed if a woman cannot commit rape?
Other people's thoughts?
Apologies, I will maybe make more sense in the morning, I just needed this out my head to get to sleep. Honestly the constant gaslighting and questioning my own reality and sanity is getting to me. Anyone else?
Just in addition - the cost it is going to take to take contest the section 35 in court is it worth it? Could the money not be better spend giving the much needed pay rises to nurses and teachers, train workers etc