Thursday, October 10, 2019

Guinness Book of Records on standby as latest Wings poll question is even more loaded than the previous ones

There were many silly moments in the immediate aftermath of Mr Campbell throwing his toys out of the pram in early September because I refused to pipe down about the inherent problems with the idea of setting up his own political party, but the silliest one of all came when one of his supporters donned a deerstalker and unearthed a tweet in which I'd suggested that a Wings poll had once asked an absurdly leading question about the trans self-ID issue.  "I think there may be more to Mr Kelly's opposition than meets the eye" said the Wings supporter (or words to that effect) to which Mr Campbell replied "Aha!" as if he'd just found incontrovertible proof that I only opposed the Wings party because I was a secret supporter of self-ID.

The reason this was monumentally silly is, of course, that I'm not a secret supporter of self-ID.  Quite the reverse.  I've been on the record for months in saying that I broadly agree with Mr Campbell on the trans issue.  It certainly doesn't rank as highly on my list of priorities as it does for him, and I think it always rings a bit phoney when he couches his views on the subject in the language of radical feminism, but nevertheless I do wish the SNP would take their foot off the accelerator on self-ID and at the very least seek a meaningful compromise.  I don't think this is the ditch they should be dying in.

At the end of the day, though, a leading polling question is a leading polling question, and Mr Campbell has just repeated the exercise in his latest poll (conducted among SNP voters only).  I defy anyone to say with a straight face that the following wording can be regarded as neutral.

"The SNP has announced its intention to implement 'self-ID' legislation, whereby physically-male people will have unrestricted access to all female-only spaces and services (eg. toilets, hospital wards, changing rooms, sporting competitions and women's refuges) if they declare themselves to be women, whether or not they've had any medical treatment or surgery to change their sex.

On a scale of 0 to 10, how do you feel about this proposal?"

When I pointed out the leading nature of the previous similar question, it was suggested to me that the lack of public knowledge about the issue means that you'd only get meaningful results if you explain the implications of the policy when asking the question.  That's fine, but if you're going to explain the issue you actually have to do it in an even-handed way (unless of course the purpose of the poll is propaganda rather than the accurate measurement of public opinion).  If it's not possible to find genuinely neutral language on such an emotive topic, one option would be to explain how proponents see the proposal and then counterbalance that with how opponents see it.  Essentially Mr Campbell's question gives respondents the case for the prosecution but not for the defence.  All of the main concerns of the anti-self-ID lobby are carefully itemised (including the mention of women's refuges, which is calculated to produce a certain reaction), but that process is not repeated for the concerns of the pro-self-ID lobby.  There's also a tone of incredulity throughout - trans women are not trans women but "physically-male people" and they will not merely have access to female-only spaces, but "unrestricted" access, and they'll have it "whether or not" they've "change[d] their sex".  No-one can accuse Mr Campbell of sparing the kitchen sink in this question.

My own guess is that the results of the poll might not have been all that radically different if a fairer question had been asked, and if I'm right, Mr Campbell has undermined the credibility of the numbers for no good reason.  It's all a bit pointless.

Still no sign of the dodgy question we all know he asked about the Wings party idea.  Maybe I should open a book on when (if ever) he'll get round to publishing those results.

63 comments:

  1. Why can't Scots have a TYT News type channel. Where progressive SNP policies are explain better to the public rather than the heavily skewed Media that we have at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to be progressive.

      Delete
    2. Ha ha ha ha ha! That's a belter! GWC saying other people have to be progressive! I actually fell off my couch ! You're such a dichotomy; an oxymoron if you will! Feel free to Google these words to actually expand and diversify your limited brain.

      Delete
  2. The question itself is a wee bitsy sexist. Why couldn't have he have changed the question to female from male for half of the sample? If he asked the same but changed the gender, would he have gotten the same result? I was having afternoon tea with a friend when she received this poll on her phone. Once she read that question out I knew who had commissioned the poll. I had to explain to her what the issue is about. Her eyes glazed over. Her priority was getting independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find the whole transgender thing ridiculously sexist. 'Blue for boys and pink for girls' (the transpride flag), female = barbie / male = GI joe is about as regressive as you can get.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzNyx_OX0AEXWcI.jpg

      Talk about (very male) sexist stereotyping! I cannot believe progressive parties are eating up this shit. No wonder feminists cannae believe what they are seeing.

      As I've pointed out before, for some reason trans activists don't run around demanding pre-op teen / pre-teen transboys use the males showers etc.

      Why is this? I mean if transboys are boys, then what are they doing in the ladies? Perving?

      It seems that arguing the occasional 'effeminate' (sexists, I know) willy owner in the ladies is ok, but they figure public support will evaporate immediately in the face of the above. Yet the reasons for having concerns about both are identical.

      That or they are just thinking about male privilege (the debate does seem heavily focused on transwomen's rights) without giving a thought to the logical reality, which is classic male to be honest. I say this as one.

      It's all very unfortunate for those with genuine sex dysphoria, which can be pretty distressing.

      Delete
  3. for some reason trans activists don't run around demanding pre-op teen / pre-teen transboys use the males showers etc.

    As i've said before legislation regarding the GRA only applies to people over the age of 18, hence why trans activist don't run around talking about people under that age dur to the fact the any GRA reform (or the GRA in its current form does not apply to them.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erm, it's trans activists demanding changes to birth certificates; that means a transboy must be a boy from day 1 in their eyes.

      And making this only legally the case at 18 is then just nuts.

      So 'boys' are getting naked with my 12 year old daughter and this is seen as ok? If a transman is a man, they're that from birth; hence the birth certificates surely?

      Surely if transboys are boys, they should be in the male room as soon as any signs are identified /at the earliest age? If transboys are boys then there are 17 year old lads using the same showers as my daughter! You know what boys are like; they'll shag anything and they won't wait until they are 18! Clearly we should segregate from an early age, like we'd always done with cis?

      It's all utterly mad. Not a shred of logic.

      It's what you get when you base policy on 'thoughts and feelings' rather than science.

      I absolutely get that self-id etc is all being done with the best of intentions, but the whole thing is being horribly confused because its not logic based.

      Delete
    2. I see gender as inherently sexist. It is a societal construct developed mainly by men.

      We should do away with the whole thing entirely and have only sex (for medical purposes etc) as the official characteristic.

      Dresses should be seen as clothing for men as much as women (Scotmen wear skirts already and I think they're well comfy). Same for hair, make-up, fixing the car, GI joe comics... everything should be unisex. If a boy plays with dolls and wants to put on a dress, he's a boy, not a 'girl in the wrong body'. That's what Iranian religious nut clerics say.

      That way transboys can just enjoy life as a girl, loving the body they were born with (which is never the wrong one), free from the constrains of gender stereotypes.

      Delete

    3. So 'boys' are getting naked with my 12 year old daughter and this is seen as ok? If a transman is a man, they're that from birth; hence the birth certificates surely?

      nope, but there are laws that provide protection no matter what 'gener/sex a person is. So nothing to do with the GRA.

      If transboys are boys then there are 17 year old lads using the same showers as my daughter! You know what boys are like; they'll shag anything and they won't wait until they are 18!

      Again protections against this no matter what age gender sex a person is - nothing to do with the GRA.

      If a transman is a man, they're that from birth

      Yes, but 18 has been set as the age that a person is is old enough to make a legal decision. This has been the case for 15 years.

      I see gender as inherently sexist

      Gender is used a method to separate legislation from someones biological sex. This means (as used in the Equalities act) that a person who is of the male sex and changes his gender from male to female, can be legally prevented from using female(sex) safe places. Wether or not you find gender sexist is irreverent, the distinction between gender and biological sex is a necessary requirement to be able to provide safe spaces etc for biological females etc

      Its all very simple as i have said numerous times. Do you think that people should be able to change their gender without having to go the current medical process. We

      I can't honestly how its become such a big thing, its impletion caused no real problems in your country (i'm referring to Ireland as you are an Irish citizen). As well as 4 other European countries.

      Delete
    4. I was obviously being obtuse...

      Gender is sexist; i.e. the concept that men and women can be distinguished by something other than sex (thoughts, feelings, dress, presentation, hobbies, roles in the home...).

      It's impossible to change sex and it's just entertaining fantasy to suggest it's possible. You can't surgically / medically change sex any more than you can age. Cosmetic is all you can do. A mutilation of the human body and something we should make every attempt to dissuade children from doing. We should never, ever tell them something is wrong with their bodies / they are in the wrong one (I have a family member who suffered severe body issues when young to the point they nearly killed themselves).

      A last resort for adults with the serious illness that is severe sex dysphoria (unless they want to pay for it themselves I guess, as it's a free country).

      Safe spaces very obviously don't require gender, only discrimination based on sex.

      As people can't change sex, then we don't need gender.

      If someone undergo sex reassignment, they can just be registered as having had that done. Sex has 'changed', at least outwardly. Certainly, if a man is willing to do that, it's safe enough to assume he's no higher risk threat to women.

      It would be lovely if we could change sex if we wanted with ease, just like it would be great if we could cure all disabilities with a magic wand, but we can't. Life is tough. We can't wish this away any more than we can other biological reality.

      I know you will just say 'well that's the law' to me, and I appreciate that, but as I scientist I can't see this any other way than reality, cold and hard as that may sound sometimes. The law can be an ass. It is a lot of the time. It's only recently it's improved for women and other discriminated groups.

      Delete
    5. Men have a willie and women a fud. They can dress up whichever way they choose but that does not disguise what they are.

      Delete
    6. As for the GRA self-id... it's not possible to 'think' yourself into the opposite sex. You sex is the one you were born with and will die with. You can only think yourself into a gender stereotype of the sex you would rather you were.

      You may of course have medical sex dysphoria severe enough to require medical intervention. If you need that, it's because you are unwell mentally (which is nothing to be ashamed of; similar happened to a family member of mine as noted). There is no need for self-id here obviously!

      Delete
    7. Two people meet in a restaurant and they seem to know each other. The guy says to the woman I know you from school and she says yes. He says you used to be a man. She says that is true but I had operations. The man says were the operations difficult. She replied not too bad I had a nipp and tuck. The guy said was it that easy. She replied that narrowing the brain was difficult.

      Delete
    8. Safe spaces very obviously don't require gender, only discrimination based on sex

      You want to get rid of sex discrimation laws? Remove the rights for females not to be discriminated against?

      That would be silly of course, hence the use of Gender.

      Anyhow that is all irreverent, the GRA (and use of gender instead of sex) all comes from a ECHR ruling and of course is not going to be reversed. Its all quite old news, all the arguments you are making about were placed in front of the ECHR 15 years ago, so are nothing new.

      As I keep saying all the changes to the GRA relate to is self id. I don't know why people keep bringing up other things like sex and gender, as i said they are all old arguments that have been legally resolved.

      Really don't know why such a very limited change in the law is causing such a fuss and why people keep trying to bring up old discussions and other subjects such as safe spaces which are not covered by the act.

      Delete
    9. Because certain people want to use it for political gain for their big push to bring down the SNP as if that's ever going to happen, but they're internetting it to death hoping that all the internet readers will do what they want

      all less than 2% of them, I think they're renaming it socialism because everybody knows that did really well the first million times the same people keep trying to sell it

      Delete
    10. There is no ECHR ruling that demands we cave in to the perverts. NONE! Why do you pervert supporters always lie? Gender is used instead of sex because feminazis are mongos and the internet gets upset when you use the S word.
      Words have gender, people have sex!

      The GRA was introduced to allow post op trannyfannies to marry without having to legislate for same-sex weddings. It can be safely scrapped without affecting anyone's rights. Just some petted lips from a gang of perverts.

      Hopefully we can arrange a solution for them, a final one to end any arguments. It would help reduce the human population, and move towards saving the planet, even if only a wee bit.

      Delete
    11. "You want to get rid of sex discrimination laws? Remove the rights for females not to be discriminated against?"

      No. You just made that up.

      I have said countless times to you that if we are doing segregation, it should be based on biological sex as there is no such thing as gender / gender identity, with gender basically = historical sexists stereotypes.

      I also appear far more progressive than the GRA in that I think if you have a full sex change, society can consider you as having changed sex, and not just a 'gender' change (which is what you are saying the law does?). You should get a 'sex recognition certificate' and be treated as the opposite sex. Sure you can never fully change, but this is the closest that can be done.

      If I accept gender to be a real thing, then I'm trans myself as I would definitely say I don't confirm to the standard 'a man's man' gender stereotype. My feminist mother / equal rights parents made sure of that. Transgender charity Mermaids would say I'm not a full blooded man (GI Joe) because I'm not into fighting and guns etc for example. What utter sexist shite, just as the transpride 'pink is for girls and blue is for boys' flag crap. I will never be teaching my daughter such revoltingly sexist claptrap. She can be GI Jane if she wants and 100% woman. Pink is for boys as much as blue is for girls is what she will learn. If she wants to fix cars and learn martial arts, she will be as much a woman as any other. No sexist transpride flag for her.

      I have likewise never met a single person with a 'gender identity'. Everyone I know is male or female because that's simply what they are biologically. They don't identify as male or female. Apparently, this makes them all non-binary. Which is just ridiculous. No, they just are what they are. Gender identity doesn't exist; it seems to be an imagined concept based on the physiological problems of a tiny % of the population who have sex dysphoria.

      Some folks 'present' more like gender stereotypes than others, some don't at all. However, there is no way of attempting to 'present' as male or female without being sexist as fuck by resorting to stereotypes. To do so actually do it in any real, non-sexist sense, you need medical treatment.

      They're feeding kids this crap at school. I have had to explain to my daughter that no, the little boy at school who magically turned into a girl one day (simply by putting on a dress) is still just a boy like he was the day before... that society is sexist and won't let him wear a dress and make up etc unless he 'transitions' like this, even though it's just a big fantasy. Of course I have told her to accept how he wants to dress/live and never, ever mock people for this. However, she should not believe in the fantasy being created around him by some. He's a boy. Just a boy that likes make up and dresses.

      So it is relevant to the right now. It's a very real issue.

      Delete
  4. There seems to be a great deal of misinformation being peddled about the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)and the proposed reforms. Much of the misinformation/misdirection appears to be aimed at giving the impression that this is solely a Scottish Government initiative. It is not.

    The GRA Act 2004 was passed by the UK Government in response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR). Holyrood agreed to the Act via a Sewel Convention. So Gender Recognition has been in place since 2005.

    In 2016 the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee recommended reform of the Act

    In the 2016 Holyrood Elections every party included reform of the GRA in their manifestos.

    In 2018 the UK Government consulted on reforming the GRA in England and Wales. The Scottish Government carried out a 16-week consultation to which there were 15,500 responses. Since then further concerns have been raised therefore the SG has withdrawn the proposed Bill that was the subject of the consultation and will restart the process from scratch. Ms Somerville outlined what the SG proposed in her statement to Parliament in June 2019 where she said:

    “However, I am acutely aware of how divided opinion is on this issue and I want to proceed in a way that builds maximum consensus and allows valid concerns to be properly addressed.

    For that reason, we will not introduce legislation to Parliament immediately.

    Consultation on draft bill
    Instead it is my intention to publish a draft Gender Recognition (Scotland) Bill later this year.
    The Bill will be formally introduced to Parliament only when there has been a full consultation on the precise details contained within that draft bill.

    This consultation will include draft impact assessments, including a comprehensive updated Equality Impact Assessment, to ensure that all rights are protected in a balanced way.

    This additional step in the process will, I hope, give parliament and all stakeholders the opportunity to consider and respond to specific proposals. And it will allow discussion to move from the general to the detailed.

    All aspects of the draft Bill will be open for consultation. We will take forward the legislation when that process has taken place and we are content that responses have been analysed, concerns allayed and that we can introduce a bill that has the support of this Parliament and the of public. We will inform Parliament of the timetable for legislation once this process has been completed.””

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/review-of-gender-recognition-act-2004/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Humans don't have gender and humans, being sexually dimorphic mammals are incapable of ever changing sex. Stick your gender bollocks up your MAP corrupted arse.

      All parties have been infiltrated by the perverts and pay homage to stonewall and their massed ranks of perverts,

      Try and sell giving perverts control of our lives on the doorsteps and see where you end up. Tell parents that perverts will be able to share toilets, changing rooms, tents with their children and that you will have them imprisoned if they complain.

      Get your filthy pervert hands away from my country.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @12:00 AM
      Invent a time machine and transport yourself back to the 1950's and 60's where you will fit right in with the bigots who were using those "pervert" arguments against the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for that Legerwood , very informative , more of this kind of information please from you , it chimes out all the whitabootery .

      Delete
    4. This is a link to the full statement Ms Somerville made to the Scottish Parliament in June 2019

      https://news.gov.scot/speeches-and-briefings/statement-on-gender-recognition

      And a quote from the statement on women only spaces

      “”One particular area of concern that has been raised about gender recognition reform - both during and since the consultation - is the impact it will have on the provision and protection of single sex or women only spaces and services.

      Presiding Officer, it is vital to be clear on this important point.

      The Equality Act already allows trans people to be excluded, in some circumstances, from single sex services where that is proportionate and justifiable, including where a trans person has legal recognition. The Government’s proposals to reform the Act will not affect that position.""

      Delete
    5. Well said, I don't know what it is that has people ascribing the GRA as an SNP project when it is clearly nothing of the kind.

      Delete
  5. Yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn.

    I specifically asked Panelbase about the trans question, I'll quote their response verbatim in the hope that you'll go and bore the arse off them with your hate-addled whining instead of me:

    "I think the description of the overall issue is fair enough, we'll probably get the odd whinge from predictable quarters but the situation is what it is and the examples given are genuine."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem a bit tense, Stu? Are you getting nervous about the absolute tsunami of ridicule you're going to get, when you reveal the bullshit question about the likelihood of SNP voters using their regional vote to allow a narcissistic bully to plonk his arse down on a Holyrood seat?

      Because if the question is what one contributor has said it is, you ARE going to get the urine extracted from you in a big way ...... by everyone who hasn't swallowed your MSM style fact-twisting bullshit!!

      It must really twist your tits that you can't delete these comments as you do on your site, eh?
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
    2. It very mildly amuses me that you're apparently surprised and offended that I don't want to listen to swivel-eyed shite like the above on my own website.

      Delete
    3. Every poll taken before sodomy was decriminalised, every poll showed that most people opposed that. By your thinking, that should be put back on the books because human rights are supposed to be a popularity contest. And marriage equality was opposed by a large majority until pretty recently. I guess we should do away with that as well because human rights are supposed to be a popularity contest. And there are plenty of people, possibly a majority, who are good with abuse of Travellers. It is all up to whom it is popular to give human rights to, not treating all members of society with dignity and respect.

      Signed, Your not-so-friendly neighborhood lesbian

      Delete
    4. Mr Campbell, actually quoting an alleged private response from Panelbase in an attempt to blame them for your own leading question, which you were paying them thousands of pounds to ask, is beneath contempt. You know that, I know that, we all know that. Try taking responsibility for your own actions.

      Delete
    5. Tell you what, drop them a line complaining about it, and explaining to them that they're a bunch of idiots who don't know how to run a polling company and should check with you before they do anything.

      Delete
    6. No, I won't do that. What polling companies do to make money is ask questions that clients want asked in return for thousands of pounds. They tend to be pleasant and accommodating to those clients for entirely understandable reasons, regardless of the agenda that the client is pushing. That can be seen, for example, in Survation's willingness to ask a certain 'voting intention' question on behalf of Scotland in Union that I doubt if any of us - including you - consider to be a genuine attempt to measure public opinion on independence.

      He who pays the piper calls the tune. I'm far more interested in holding the person who calls the tune accountable, rather than some unnamed person from Panelbase who may have fallen into your little trap of saying something unwise when they were trying to please a paying client and when they presumably thought they were speaking in confidence.

      Basically your complaint here is that your polling is being regularly analysed in a polling blog. With all due respect, it's hard to think of a more fatuous and futile complaint than that. If being mentioned in a polling blog really bothers you so much, all I can suggest is that you stop publishing polling results on an almost daily basis. Alternatively you could just chill out and accept that when you step into the political arena in a free society, people have the right to comment on your decisions and actions.

      Delete
    7. Och did you delete ma post James? It wisnae aboot yersel, but some polite points in response tae J.R. Tomlin above.

      Delete
    8. God, James, have you always been this tedious a prick and we just didn't notice?Yes, of course polling companies will ask almost anything if you pay them. But they'll also give you honest advice if you ask them for it, and pretty much every poll question I've ever asked has been subject to discussion with PB.

      Sometimes I take their advice and sometimes I don't, and they run the question either way, but they've never held back on commenting - we've had the occasional pretty heated debate - and the unfortunate truth for you is that they simply saw nothing wrong with that question.

      I don't care in the slightest that you've completely lost your mind over me - I'm more than happy to tell people to go fuck themselves, and I'm terribly flattered that you've become so dementedly obsessed with me I'm starting to think that the title of your blog is a reference to your blood vessels - but it really is despicable that you're accusing a highly respectable professional polling company of being a bunch of snivelling bootlickers who'd fail to do their job properly for a quick few quid. If they were, I'd hire someone else.

      Delete
    9. You are incredible, Stuart. Absolutely incredible. This is the second time in the space of 48 hours that you've accused me of doing the exact thing you've just done yourself. Yesterday it was double-standards on the treatment of Don't Knows, today it's synthetic outrage over the treatment of Panelbase. I have not criticised Panelbase once in these posts or in these threads. Not once. That is a matter of fact. It is you who are trying to shift the blame onto them for your own ridiculously leading choice of questions. It is you who has in all probability betrayed the trust of someone who assumed they were sharing their views with you privately. Does anyone seriously think that if Panelbase had devised their own question on the trans debate, they would have come up with one remotely like the one you paid them to ask? Nope. Not even you believe that. You may occasionally get away with insulting the intelligence of your own readers, but it doesn't work with me, sunshine. If you've quoted your Panelbase contact accurately, what they were saying to you is that there was nothing in your question that was so beyond the pale that it would be against their professional integrity to run it - but that's an incredibly low threshold. They were not saying it was a neutral, objective, or non-leading question, and to use your own favourite phrase, it's embarrassing to see you desperately pretend that they were.

      Turning to your abusive comments in the first and third paragraphs, all I can say is "nice try, Stu". I'm not the one who spent tens of thousands of pounds of my readers' money on legal fees because I couldn't bear the fact that somebody had said something beastly about me. I supported you in doing that, but it doesn't leave you ideally placed to lecture others about "demented obsessions". You went purple with rage in August and September because I pointed out that some of the claims you made about the potential of the Wings party were untrue and contradicted by your own previous comments. You went through your full repertoire, coming up with bogus grievances and then predictably launching a barrage of foul-mouthed abuse against me on social media, just as you've done with so many others before me. And how many angry comments have you posted on this blog over recent days and weeks? And yet today you're posing as the person who has remained cool while I've apparently been "dementedly obsessed" by simply writing about newly-published polling on a polling blog. Yeah, good luck with that spin, Reverend.

      By the way, the same rules apply to you as to everyone else - if you want to comment on this blog, please moderate your language.

      Delete
    10. "Fuck" is just a word like any other, Miss Prissy. If you don't like my language it's your blog, you're wholly at liberty to ban me. Kinda wish you would, as it would save me the temptation of wasting my breath pointing out your deranged hypocrisy.

      Delete
    11. "Miss Prissy"? I can't imagine why anyone would ever have suspected you have a problem with women. You're right about one thing, though: it is my blog, and my rules.

      So long, Reverend. Catch you at Bible class.

      Delete
    12. Scottish Skier: I deleted your comment because I assumed you'd accidentally posted it in the wrong place - I'd forgotten JR Tomlin had commented in this section of the thread. I'll re-post your comment below under your own name.

      Delete
    13. Anal sex and equal marriage require the consent of two adults.

      So, naked females (transmen) in the gents should likewise require the explicit consent of all present. That is the fair comparison.

      At the same time, if one group can choose which toilet they use, to be truly equal, all groups should be able to. If a transwoman can use the ladies or gents, then a cis man should be able to as well. If not then it's not equal rights; transmen have rights cis men don't.

      This in effect ends segregation, which is one solution, and not the worst if people at least know that is the case is. A woman then knows the threat of rape/sexual molestation is much higher than for sex segregation, so can take appropriate precautions etc.

      Or, sex segregation is retained and it's that which defines access with no exceptions to ensure equality. And that is so important; equality.

      Equal marriage and gay rights are about not telling people how to live their lives when this has no effect on others.

      With the trans issue, there is more than one group affected. All groups are.

      And not just for sex segregation. If we can change sex by just feeling that way, then we should be able to change other things like age, race and disabled status too. To allow one but not the others is not equality.

      Delete
    14. What I find funny is that anyone ever thought that someone who does mutual arse-licking, of the most despicably smug, fatuous and sleazy manner possible, with Alex Salmond on Putin TV is concerned about truth.

      Campbell is a scumbag. A scumbag who can't even vote in a Scottish independence referendum. Campbell is symptomatic of the current era - he confuses the extremely dubious 'cyber-popularity' for the necessary form of popular support required to gain votes in an election. Some people like him because, like all small people, he shouts a lot and uses expletives at people from the safety of a keyboard. I imagine in person the insults would suddenly dry up. And if he comes up to Scotland to contest an election, he'll have to go street-to-street, eyeball-to-eyeball with Scots. And that might include a few of the people he has insulted.

      James Kelly has very respectfully, tactfully and forensically analysed your polling activities. He's providing a very good service by doing so. It's kind of the point of his blog. It'd be acutely bizarre if a blog dedicated to polling on matters related to Scottish independence ignored your poll on, erm, matters related to Scottish independence.

      Your projection towards Mr Kelly is uninteresting, but almost comically textbook. You accuse him of being obsessed with you (when he's simply doing his job), yet you cannot keep away from EVERY single analysis he's written of your poll. You, as per your generally unhinged egoism, cannot bear the fact that someone is ripping you a new arsehole in such a forensic and damaging fashion. You're probably chewing your I-Pad in rage.

      I, unlike many others, really hope that 'Wings Over Scotland' forms some kind of electoral entity, as I guarantee that it will be absolutely annihilated in any Holyrood election. And that will be sweet. The relatively popular blog of a contemptuous, trans-obsessive, jock-sniffing arsehole like yourself does not an electoral force make. Trust me, hardly anyone on the doorsteps have ever heard of you, Campbell. You ought to stay down in Bath and keep voting for the Liberals.

      Delete
  6. Hmmm. Yes ..... well I guess we will find out just how "swivel-eyed" I'm being, when we finally get to the end of this "peek-a-boo" show you're running on your site, and you "reveal" the question "designed" to indicate how many SNP voters would be willing to vote for the putative " Wings" party, won't we? If it is a genuine question, such as the one that James Kelly suggested on this site a week or so ago, and it shows a substantial number will switch their regional vote, then, even though I think you're an arrogant, narcissistic bully, I will be voting "Wings" and encouraging all my indy friends to vote for it as well, because giant egos aside, independence is the target, not self-aggrandisement, and an Indy-packed Holyrood will be a giant step forward.

    On the other hand, if you have asked an "Archie Stirling"-type question, then I will be encouraging everyone I know to vote SNP/SNP, and warning them about you, in exactly the same way as I did last time, when the Solidarity and RISE folk pulled the same stunt in 2016.

    When they did in 2016, what you might be doing at the next Holyrood election, you were one of their fiercest critics.

    Stick to shining a spotlight on the unionist media, Stu. You're peerless at that. When it comes to politics and opinion-forming, you're dire, mate.

    Alex Birnie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rev Stu doesn't like debate. He'll shut you down rather than debate or tell you you talk "swivel-eyed shite". He's fast becoming an embarrassment and you're right to say he will be extremely pissed off that he can't close down debate on here.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let us just take a step back and remind people that trans women ALREADY legally have access to female spaces such as loos under current human rights legislation. The self-ID legislation is to make the legal process of declaring that one is trans quicker, fairer and less traumatic. Demanding that trans women be banned from 'female spaces' is ROLLING BACK human rights, not protecting the existing rights of women.

    Signed, Your not-so-friendly neighborhood lesbian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the rolling back of human rights is the removal of women's hard-won rights to spaces without penises in them.

      Delete
    2. I can't help but think the sharing of such 'private' spaces should be consensual.

      Call me old fashioned.

      A woman and a transwoman should both mutually agree to the sharing of a space, just as two women need to. Same for a young transboy and a cis man sharing the showers at the gym. We can't just spring this on people. I'd get the fright of my life to discover a naked female body in the gents shower next to me. It's just not what people think applies right now. Folk think there is segregation based on sex, not how you 'identify'.

      Gay rights was different; only gays involved need to consent.

      Here, joint consent between all is needed.

      We need to be fair too, and ensure equality. If transwomen can use the ladies rooms, cis men should be able to as well for example. Otherwise one group of biological males has a right that the other does not. Everyone can use both facilities, or nobody can and the rule is based on sex.

      Delete
    3. They can had this discussion before, no law regarding men using a ladies restroom (as long of course as they do nothing 'wrong' whilst in the toilets)

      Delete
    4. No, the rolling back of human rights is the removal of women's hard-won rights to spaces without penises in them.

      Those rights are enshrined in the Equalities act - can you show were the GRA proposed reforms are rolling them back?

      Delete
  9. James, why don't you politely ask Rev to run every poll question by you first to see if your happy with it or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because a) his reply would be "f**k off, c**t", and b) he doesn't need anyone to hold his hand. He knows exactly what he's doing and exactly how leading some of these questions are. It's all intentional.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't put asterisks in. I'm not a WANKER.

      Delete
    3. Stu says "I'm not a WANKER". As the man with the wooden leg said "That's a matter of a pinion"

      Whether or not someone is a wanker or a narcissistic bully is relatively unimportant, unless the narcissistic bullying wanker is embarking on a course of action that could damage the prospects of gaining independence.

      Asking a vague question like "Would you consider voting for a new alternative pro-independence party on the list vote" will almost certainly receive an answer that would indicate that a fair percentage of SNP voters WOULD be willing to do such a thing. However as James Kelly has laboriously pointed out ... in great detail.... such a question is relatively meaningless as to the likelihood that those same people will ACTUALLY do it.

      If the narcissistic bullying wanker then tries to use this bullshit question as justification for forming a party to siphon regional votes from the SNP, then he would be no better than the Solidarity and RISE folk who tried this scam in 2016 - a scam which Wings Over Scotland criticised heavily at the time.

      The narcissistic bullying wanker will then have completely abandoned the independence campaign to pursue a career in politics.

      Alex Birnie

      Delete
  10. The 'trans panic' is a strange online phenomenon by which notable people share and tweet incessantly about trans people and issues above all else. It sucks in opinion formers, singers and Irish comedy writers and bemuses everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just can't abide by logical fallacies; something the trans debate is full of. I've a serious addiction to devil's advocacy too; just cannae help masel sometimes.

      However, I don't understand why folk fall out over it. I can argue until I'm blue in the face over something and not walk away with any bad feelings. That's what debate is supposed to be about.

      Delete
  11. Talk now of N. Ireland getting to stay in the EU single market and customs union now, with it's people / parliament getting the choice here. No DUP veto.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50009485

    If Scotland doesn't get the same choice it can only be anti-Scottish hatred and anti-democratic behavior from Westminster. No other possible explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RevStuOctober 11, 2019 at 10:38 AM
    I wouldn't put asterisks in. I'm not a WANKER.

    Mmmmm, as someone who paid for you over multiple years to sit at home and rant all day on line in what I thought was a positive voice for Scottish Independence I disagree. In fact that word is too tame for what I think of you now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The writing was on the wall with that 'joke'.
      Mean spirited, not funny, at least when Frankie Boyle does it the low groan that follows means the joke will never see the light of day again. He doesn't waste eye watering amounts of money defending it in court, while others look on with their heads in their hands. After years of success and admiration, losing it all must hurt.
      Those with no capacity for compromise, and no regard for anybody's feelings can get by for only so long. It's genuinely troubling watching somebody unravel, and no fun at all.

      Delete
    2. Hate to piss in your teapot, but Frankie Boyle DID sue someone for defaming him.

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/22/frankie-boyle-libel-damages-daily-mirror

      Delete
    3. It wasn't a Ratner's for him though was it ?

      Delete
  13. Yougov UK Scots subsample
    43% SNP
    20% Con
    10% Brx
    8% Lib
    6% Grn

    All looks normal. Green + SNP around half the vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, forgot Reginald Leopolds party:
      43% SNP
      20% Con
      10% Brx
      10% lab
      8% Lib
      6% Grn

      Delete
  14. Thank you for that headline!
    I haven't actually read the article yet, but I'll do so once I've stopped laughing!

    ReplyDelete
  15. About the trans issue - the trans people I have known are not in the least threatening. The self-ID thing is for people over 18, as has been pointed out. It is a permanent thing, so if you're a straight (cisgender) (physical) (heterosexual) male, you can't just decide to dress in drag, claime you're female on alternate Tuesday afternoons and hang about the ladies' changing rooms at the baths.

    Trans people are very good at dealing with people who find them frightening or distasteful. They should not have to put up with either, though, and if you're going to dislike someone, their gender / sex etc. should not be the reason - because it is in fact an aspect of sex discrimination.

    Nobody asks you to self-ID if you're not trans, and permanently changing your legal gender is not something anyone does lightly. People really ought to stop worrying about it. There really is nothing to be afraid of. It's abnormal straight males who cause the most trouble - not trans people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's surprising that BxP have overtaken the LibDems in Scotland.
    I was just thinking about what might happen to the LDs after 31 Oct and I thought that they might become a Remainer version of Old UKIP -- but with their strength in places like the "Celtic fringe", London and the uni English provincial capitals.

    Just a sub-sample of course.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just reading this and holy crap, I am trans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender

    "Non-binary people as a group have a wide variety of gender expressions, and some may reject gender "identities" altogether."

    That's me. I don't have a gender identity, so don't conform to the M/F stereotypes here. I think gender is just a pile of sexist as hell horsedung mainly and I completely reject it as a result. I'm just a male. It's not my 'identity'; it's my biology. I'm not male because I feel that way, but because I simply am male.

    Ok. Anyone who complains about my posts on this topic are clearly transphobic. According to many transactivists anyway.

    ReplyDelete