Indyref 2 (2) - Page 122 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Indyref 2 (2)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

This is a much better analogy. Factually they are not a birth mother but once they have gone through the process they are the mother with all the legal rights etc that come with it. As you say they are also entitled to be treated as such.

It also has its limitations though, using the same analogy. I havent heard of any mother who has adopted trying to argue that they are factually the same as a birth mother, ie in terms of DNA of the child etc. They accept for whatever reason that they didnt give birth to the child but are now legally and otherwise the childs mother.

The problem I sometimes see in this debate is that some are not willing to and in most cases are offended by the "facts" being presented to them. People born with penises were not women. They can go through a process where they can legally become a women and should thereafter be treated as such but the fact remains that they arent identical to naturally born women. Not that this should make any difference to how people treat them.

Pandering to a very vocal minority isn’t going to work though, they’ll never accept the above and the dial is just going to get turned to more ridiculous levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

This is a much better analogy. Factually they are not a birth mother but once they have gone through the process they are the mother with all the legal rights etc that come with it. As you say they are also entitled to be treated as such.

It also has its limitations though, using the same analogy. I havent heard of any mother who has adopted trying to argue that they are factually the same as a birth mother, ie in terms of DNA of the child etc. They accept for whatever reason that they didnt give birth to the child but are now legally and otherwise the childs mother.

The problem I sometimes see in this debate is that some are not willing to and in most cases are offended by the "facts" being presented to them. People born with penises were not women. They can go through a process where they can legally become a women and should thereafter be treated as such but the fact remains that they arent identical to naturally born women. Not that this should make any difference to how people treat them.

Yeah that's the point in it as well, there is more in the human experience to being a parent than the configuration of adenine , cytosine, guanine, and thymine , your genotype.

Absolutism just doesn't exist in an indeterminate universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2023 at 2:25 PM, Dave78 said:

Fw5L5HLWIAI9KTQ?format=jpg&name=medium

I like pie charts

but like everything seemingly simple.. 

by Scots do you mean those resident in Scotland include the half million England born and hundreds of thousands from Europe and elsewhere and at the same time exclude the millions of Scots not living in Scotland 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Shaundy said:

I like pie charts

but like everything seemingly simple.. 

by Scots do you mean those resident in Scotland include the half million England born and hundreds of thousands from Europe and elsewhere and at the same time exclude the millions of Scots not living in Scotland 

Like all polls it will be those people who were polled who are a representative of the targeted demographic.  In this case people over the age of 16, eligible to vote who live in Scotland. 

But then you knew that anyway, so I’m struggling to think what the point of your question is 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Freeedom said:

Jim is very poor, he gets rattled far too easily and starts talking before he has thought through what it is he actually has to say. 

 

Aye definitely and being on there doesn’t do him justice, one of the better msp’s on the go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 3:43 PM, Diamond Scot said:

It also has its limitations though, using the same analogy. I havent heard of any mother who has adopted trying to argue that they are factually the same as a birth mother, ie in terms of DNA of the child etc. They accept for whatever reason that they didnt give birth to the child but are now legally and otherwise the childs mother.

How many trans women claim to be biologically, as opposed to being legally, female? Just curious.

But however many may do, isn't that irrelevant, as the political issue is to do with the right to, and means of, becoming legally female, not about the im/possibility of being/becoming biologically female?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, exile said:

How many trans women claim to be biologically, as opposed to being legally, female? Just curious.

But however many may do, isn't that irrelevant, as the political issue is to do with the right to, and means of, becoming legally female, not about the im/possibility of being/becoming biologically female?

I read this earlier and it’s somewhat relevant 

https://thecritic.co.uk/A-question-of-ideology/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, exile said:

How many trans women claim to be biologically, as opposed to being legally, female? Just curious.

But however many may do, isn't that irrelevant, as the political issue is to do with the right to, and means of, becoming legally female, not about the im/possibility of being/becoming biologically female?

I think lots claim to be "the same' which is different from being "treated the same". 

The whole thing is abit of a mess though and just shows what a state society is in. On one hand you have people saying that everybody should be able to identify as they wish but on the other the same people are up in arms whenever somebody states an opposing view. 

The current law allows for biological women exceptions as does the new law so alot of what is being portrayed as the issue in the media isnt even an issue.

For my part I honestly have no strong views on it. I think everybody should be able to identify as they wish and in general terms be left to go about their day as normal. Its the in your face almost militrant element of it that causes me some concern as that feeds into society. 

Ie when I was younger at school there was very few openly gay people. In fact I can only think of 2. 1 was a boy who acted pretty "normally", he wasnt overly into sport but would chat away with the other boys and nobody batted an eye in the main. The other was an over the top "queer" type who was constanstantly in peoples faces, making every situation about him and his "gayness", he used to do things like purposesly rub somebodys hand or blow them a kiss then run away to the teachers saying that he was getting bullied for being gay when he got battered. My point here being, even teenagers pretty much dont care who or what people are if everybody just gets on with things. Its when it become provocative etc that people get nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

How many trans women claim to be biologically, as opposed to being legally, female? Just curious.

 

There are a lot that dont  

I know of two - one was a big indy supporter called Kelly McD who has since passed away and another called Holly who joined in a few Twitter Independence debates who had their twitter account suspended for being gender critical 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m on a train going south and there’s two Scottish guys sitting across me discussing the DRS scheme and how it’s a disaster.  One guy’s telling the other that you’ll be able to buy a case at 24 bottles of cheap water in Asdas in Carlisle for £3 and then drive over the border to Gretna, pour the water down the sink and you’ll get £4.80 back on the deposit.  
 

That is clearly pish, as the refund system will check that a deposit was paid on the container before issuing a refund and there will be different barcodes for England and Scotland according to Alister Jack* yesterday.

The fact that they believe nonsense like that though to me is symptomatic of “why is it so difficult to get past 50%”.

*I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aaid said:

I’m on a train going south and there’s two Scottish guys sitting across me discussing the DRS scheme and how it’s a disaster.  One guy’s telling the other that you’ll be able to buy a case at 24 bottles of cheap water in Asdas in Carlisle for £3 and then drive over the border to Gretna, pour the water down the sink and you’ll get £4.80 back on the deposit.

If I was in charge of DRS they'd be 50p deposit on bottled water. Absolutely ridiculous stuff and disastrous for the environment, single use plastic and you can get perfectly good water out the tap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

If I was in charge of DRS they'd be 50p deposit on bottled water. Absolutely ridiculous stuff and disastrous for the environment, single use plastic and you can get perfectly good water out the tap!

Agree. School authorities didn't help by banning diluting juice where you would have used tap water. Kids were only allowed to bring in  plain water, we now have generations who believe tap water isn't as good as bottled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Och Aye said:

Agree. School authorities didn't help by banning diluting juice where you would have used tap water. Kids were only allowed to bring in  plain water, we now have generations who believe tap water isn't as good as bottled.

Eh????

How does that stop you drinking tap water?

Why did they ban diluting juice? Did it make them want to use the cat litter trays too often?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, aaid said:

That’s it guys, focus on the example the guy gave and not the substantive point and *that’s* why we’re stuck on 50%.

There were some issues with the implementing of the scheme, but as you say folk are just deliberately focusing on all the wrong issues, to divert attention away from the fact that the SG will no longer be allowed to introduce any new ideas unless Westminster approve them first. 

It is almost certain that the SG wouldn't now be allowed to introduce things like free prescriptions, if they weren't already in place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

There were some issues with the implementing of the scheme, but as you say folk are just deliberately focusing on all the wrong issues, to divert attention away from the fact that the SG will no longer be allowed to introduce any new ideas unless Westminster approve them first. 

It is almost certain that the SG wouldn't now be allowed to introduce things like free prescriptions, if they weren't already in place. 

This has all came from the disastrous pursuit of the universally unpopular GRR with no fuck given, Westminster was able to put the breaks on that with little fuss due to it being massively unpopular. Now they have done it once they can do it again. Sturgeon is a fucking idiot who has destroyed the snp and put devolution in danger 

Edited by hampden_loon2878
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

There were some issues with the implementing of the scheme, but as you say folk are just deliberately focusing on all the wrong issues, to divert attention away from the fact that the SG will no longer be allowed to introduce any new ideas unless Westminster approve them first. 

It is almost certain that the SG wouldn't now be allowed to introduce things like free prescriptions, if they weren't already in place. 

The legislation to enable DRS was passed in the previous parliament with cross party support - it should not be considered controversial.   Until very recently 3 out of 4 nations in the UK were progressing their own schemes, with the same basic principles but with different timescales, the one missing was NI which has not had a functioning government for over a year.  

The Welsh and Scottish Governments both warned that the UK Internal market act would be a threat to devolution and so it has come to pass.

The point here though is that something as uncontroversial and benign as the DRS is brought right into the politic scheme with the UKG being happy to through its weight about.   That's twice they've done this this year, lets see what the next piece of legislation is that they veto.

You kind of expect this sort of thing from the Unioinists, what is a lot more concerning is that there are plenty of people who are notionally independence supporters who are prepared to wreck the program of work of the Scottish government because they seemingly despise the Greens and are more intent on getting them out of government - independence but only on my own terms.

Edit - my final point proven in the post just above.

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Eh????

How does that stop you drinking tap water?

Why did they ban diluting juice? Did it make them want to use the cat litter trays too often?

I take it you haven't had kids at primary school lately. Throughout primary school they were allowed a bottle of water at their desks so they'd go buy bottled water (maybe it's just a regional thing) they weren't allowed diluting juice or anything else. My kid won't drink from a tap, apparently it tastes funny compared to bottled water and her friends are the same. She will even put diluting juice in a bought bottle of water 🙄

Not like our day when we had to drink out that manky water fountain in the bogs. Though your school sounds a bit iffy if it had cat litter trays.

Edited by Och Aye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Och Aye said:

I take it you haven't had kids at primary school lately. Throughout primary school they were allowed a bottle of water at their desks so they'd go buy bottled water (maybe it's just a regional thing) they weren't allowed diluting juice or anything else. My kid won't drink from a tap, apparently it tastes funny compared to bottled water and her friends are the same. She will even put diluting juice in a bought bottle of water 🙄

Not like our day when we had to drink out that manky water fountain in the bogs. Though your school sounds a bit iffy if it had cat litter trays.

None of that is the fault of the kids, it's all down to bad parenting. 

Why do they need water at their desks? They get plenty of breaks and they are only in school for about 3 and a half hours a day anyway.

Why are they allowed water and not juice? Is that to make it harder to cover up the smell of the vodka?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...