Thursday, October 28, 2021

EXCLUSIVE SCOT GOES POP / PANELBASE POLL: Just 20% of people in Scotland, and only 29% of SNP voters, support gender self-ID

A few months ago, there was an opinion poll in the Republic of Ireland - a country that introduced gender self-identification six years ago - that provided comprehensive data about how people feel towards the change in the law and its consequences.  I was asked at the time whether I would consider commissioning a similar poll in Scotland, and although it's very different from the sort of polls I've taken on in the past, I started thinking it might not be a bad idea.  I've been frustrated in the past by the obvious skew in the polling questions that have been asked on the subject of reform of the Gender Recognition Act (very different skews depending on who was asking the questions), and I could see a way in which a more authoritative and credible poll, like the one in Ireland, could help to inform the debate going forward.  This issue has really opened up a schism in the independence movement, just as it has in many other progressive movements across the western world.  Although the two sides are not going to suddenly start agreeing with each other just because they know what the public think, a small step towards reaching a resolution would be to at least share a common understanding of what public opinion actually is, rather than to have two competing conceptions of "what the voters want" that are completely alien from each other.

The Scottish Government have repeatedly stressed that gender self-identification would not be a frivolous process - even though people would be making the decision for themselves without the involvement of medical gatekeepers, they would still be expected to make a serious, considered decision that will last for a lifetime.  There's no intention to open the floodgates to people making a mockery of the process by identifying as women on Tuesday, as men on Wednesday, and as women again on Thursday.  It's very important, therefore, that any poll question about self-ID reflects the serious nature of the government's proposal and does not caricature it in any way.  That's what I've tried to achieve with the wording of the key question on the principle of gender self-ID, and indeed after discussions with Panelbase my original wording was tweaked further to ensure maximum accuracy.

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll (a representative sample of 1001 over-16s in Scotland was interviewed by Panelbase between 20th and 26th October 2021)

Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person feels a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. For example, this may mean that a biologically male individual feels strongly that they are female, or a biologically female individual feels strongly that they are male.  At present, most people who wish to legally change the sex or gender recorded on their birth certificate must first receive a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but it is not necessary for them to have undergone gender reassignment surgery.  The Scottish Government is committed to changing the law in Scotland within the next year to allow people to legally change their gender without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, provided they make a solemn declaration that they are living in their new gender and will continue to do so.   

In your opinion, who should be eligible to legally change the sex or gender recorded on their birth certificate?

Anyone who makes a solemn declaration that they are living in their new gender: 20%

Only people who have been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria: 18%

Only people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery: 21%

No-one: 19%

Don't Know / Prefer not to answer: 22%

With a four-option question format, there was a theoretical chance that the order in which the options were presented to respondents could make a difference to the outcome, so to be on the safe side Panelbase used the above order for half of the sample, and the reverse order for the other half.  In the end there was only a small difference between the results in the two halves.

So in spite of the fact that the government's proposal has been fairly and accurately presented to respondents, it appears that only around one-fifth of the public actually support it - or one-quarter if Don't Knows are excluded. 58% of respondents, or around three-quarters after Don't Knows are stripped out, chose an option that precludes the possibility of self-ID.  

It's worth pointing out that even the current system governing legal changes of gender is slightly more radical than the centre of gravity in public opinion.  A total of 40% of respondents either think no-one should be allowed to legally change their gender, or that surgery should be a precondition.  That compares to a total of 38% who either support self-ID or think people who have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria (ie. who may not necessarily have had surgery) should be eligible for a legal gender change.

There aren't really any major differences between male and female respondents on this question.  The closest thing there is to a significant difference is that only 17% of women believe that no-one should be able to legally change their gender, compared to 22% of men.  Unsurprisingly, however, there is a considerable generation gap, with 34% of under-35s supporting self-ID, compared to only 12% of over-55s.  Nevertheless, there is only minority backing for self-ID across all age groups.

Which party you vote for is strongly correlated with views on the GRA - much bigger minorities of SNP and Labour voters support self-ID (29% and 25% respectively) than is the case among Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters (7% and 4%). I must say I'm a bit stunned by the result among the Lib Dems, who you'd expect to be extremely liberal on social issues.  Maybe they're all Tories who voted tactically for Jo Swinson or Christine Jardine, or maybe the numbers are slightly suspect due to the fact that the subsample of Lib Dem voters is relatively small.  Once again, though, the bottom line is that only a minority of voters for each party support the proposed reform of the GRA.

Although the strong opposition to self-ID discovered by this poll is in line with the majority of polls that have been conducted in the past, it's not in line with all of them, and given the importance of this subject to a large number of people, it's incumbent on all of us to seriously consider the reasons for any contradiction.  In particular, there was a Savanta ComRes poll earlier this year which gave great heart to the proponents of change, because it appeared to show a plurality in favour of the principle of self-ID.  The reasons for the difference between the results of that poll and the new Panelbase poll are almost certainly bound up in the format and wording of the questions - it's unlikely that public opinion has changed so radically in the last few months.  The ComRes question arguably had quite a leading wording, because it downplayed the significance of self-ID by portraying it as merely a "streamlining" of existing procedures to make them less expensive, bureaucratic and intrusive for trans people.  There was a nod to opposition to change based on fears about women-only spaces, but the question was strangely vague about what those fears were.  It is, I would suggest, exceptionally difficult for poll respondents to say they oppose a change that they have just been informed is minor and intended to make people's lives easier.  For that reason, I'm confident that the Panelbase results are more credible and should be taken more seriously than the ComRes results.

The other big difference between the two polls is the four-option format of the Panelbase poll.  Although the ComRes poll wasn't quite binary choice, it did ask simply about support or opposition to self-ID, rather than offering other options as alternatives.  Some will perhaps argue that the Panelbase poll would have been improved if self-ID hadn't been the most radical option out of four - but that would have meant having an additional option of free-for-all self-ID without a solemn declaration, which would in my view have trivialised and distorted the position of self-ID proponents.

As I stated at the outset, I don't expect the Scottish Government to automatically change course because the public oppose their plans.  If you believe in something, there's a case to be made for leading public opinion rather than slavishly following it.  But they do need to be honest with themselves and with others that they are, as of this moment, running well ahead of where the public are ready to go, rather than persisting with the fiction that there is a huge public clamour for GRA reform.  This poll shows that there isn't even a clamour among the SNP's own voters.

UPDATE: Just by complete coincidence, I saw the Liberal Democrat blogger Caron Lindsay on Twitter this morning 'reminding' people that the "overwhelming majority of women" support self-ID.  Just for absolute clarity, this poll shows that 21% of women support self-ID, 56% of women favour the options that exclude self-ID, and the remainder are undecided or prefer not to answer.  As stated above, among Liberal Democrat voters, just 4% support self-ID, and 61% back one of the other options.

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I hope you'll bear with me as I continue to heavily promote the new fundraiser, but as I've explained a few times, the crowdfunding for this current poll did not meet the full amount required, and I'm having to cover the shortfall with my own money.  So running any future Scot Goes Pop polling - on independence or other Scottish political issues - will be pretty much impossible unless we reach the £6500 target figure, or at least get very close to it.  At present we're around 40% of the way towards the target, so a million thanks to everyone who has made donations so far.  I know times are really tough at the moment, but as I noted the other day, thousands of people read Scot Goes Pop every week, and if just 10% of those people were to donate just £10, the target figure would be reached straight away.  Of course some people can't donate for very good reasons, but one really helpful thing you can do is to share the fundraiser page and spread the word with your friends and family.

If you'd like to donate, please click HERE, or to read more about why it's so important for the pro-independence movement to occasionally crowdfund our own polls, click HERE.

51 comments:

  1. What a shame to see so little support. Still, as with gay marriage, it's not anyone's business besides the person asking for the change of birth certificate, so I'm glad the government has not given in to the tyranny of the majority.

    Anyone worried about single gender spaces like toilets should take it up with the Westminster government who control the Equalities Act which is the decade old legislation for that issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you an idiot? Have you not heard the stories about women being raped in prison, or seen the women driven out of sport by mediocre men taking their spots? Only a misogynistic and ignorant man can say this terrible idea has no impact on anyone else. It completely redefines what "man" and "woman" mean.

      Delete
    2. The relevant legislation in these cases is the equalities act which is reserved to Westminster. Its a decade old and nobody is proposing to change it.

      Delete
    3. Altering the terms on which a GRC may be issued alters who counts under the PC of sex in EA2010. The GRA was provided to cater for transsexuals, approx 5,000 of them. Dropping the barrier opens it up to what GEO now estimates is 500,000 people. You are being disingenuous claiming that's nothing to do with the terms of the GRA.

      Delete
    4. You are misinformed. Stonewall is campaigning to change the Equality Act to remove single sex spaces. They state this clearly on their website under their submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on Transgender Equality.

      Delete
    5. Sure it's not anybody's business if people want to change their birth certificate. Except the women whose spaces, sports, and prisons will be opened to any male predator who wants to enter them. But who gives a f*ck about them, eh? They're probably bigots.

      Delete
    6. Jonathon, my working definition of a “fundamentalist” is someone who arrives at conclusions in spite of the evidence. I’m sure you are a decent person, but the opinion you have expressed above is (IMO) a form of fundamentalism and all fundamentalism is dangerous because it ignores the evidence. Best wishes, Ian

      Delete
    7. Unfortunately Westminster has no control over the completely captured councils who have already changed school toilets to mixed sex. Behind everyone's back. Read the article, sanctioned by the Scottish Government.
      https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3104261/furious-parents-renfrewshire-schools-gender-neutral-toilets/

      Delete
    8. Yes, let's have the tyranny of the minority instead! And a micro minority at that. That's Sturgeonite democracy for you!

      Delete
    9. There is one tyranny of the majority that Sturgeon is not dealing with and that is the tyranny of Westminster's England votes outvoting Scotlands votes. That is the tyranny Sturgeon got voted in to deal with and she has not even tried to do anything about it.

      Delete
    10. It is thw business of people who will be affected by a change in the law.

      Delete
  2. Fascinating results that bear out my hunch about what the general public truly think about the self-id proposal.

    As a coincidence I note that the transphobia case against Marion Millar has, just this afternoon, been dropped by the Crown Office prosecutors:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/28/scottish-prosecutors-drop-transphobia-case-against-marion-millar

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, one of the obvious problems that Nicola and her clique have with their Stonewall mandated legislation is their refusal to debate or explain it in any way. Instead, as is the custom with this topic, anyone questioning or wishing to debate it is howled down and abused as a terf or transphobic. It seems to me that if they wished to carry people's opinions with them then they would be required to do what is normally considered the job of politicians - to encourage debate and explain their agenda. Instead, they cower behind slogans and threatening tweets and social media posts. Hardly an endorsement of their public role or their ability to persuade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian M : Stonewall Scotland is a minor player in Scotland - although ScotGov has signed up to Stonewalls' 'Champions' scheme.

      The two most active and best funded 'trans ally' groups are the Scottish Trans Alliance and the Equality Network.

      I stumbled across a 113-page FOI response relating to contact between the Scottish Govt and the STA/EN a couple of weeks back, and even in 2015 those two groups (basically the same entity split into two to gain more taxpayers cash) were dictating 'equality' and 'trans-inclusive' policies to their colleagues in the Scottish civil service.

      It was disturbing to read this, although I and my colleagues have suspected it since we started looking very closely in 2018.

      It's exactly the same things Stonewall has been 'outed' as doing by the Beeb's Stephen Nolan in his 10-part podcast 'Stonewall'.

      Single-issue lobby groups dictating government policy - policy that will affect every woman and girl in Scotland - is as undemocratic as you can get.
      But that's Scotland today.

      Another FOI response was published early this year and shows that over the last 5 years the STA/EN (I repeat, that 113 page response proves they are the same thing) have received close to £2,500,000 of taxpayers cash - compliments of the Scottish Government and it's civil service 'trans allies' (and that's official - it's how the redacted civil servants sign off on their email responses to the STA/EN).

      The majority of the public, our 'captured' institutions (local authorities, schools, prisons, police, etc etc), and politicians are still clueless as to what's actually happened, and is happening.

      Unless the media starts doing what it's supposed to do, our institutions do some basic fact=checking, and our politicians spend a wee bit of time doing their own research, then 'Scotlands Future' is as a basket case run by fantasists and magical thinkers.

      We're over halfway there already.

      Delete
  4. Genuine disphoria requires medical intervention and probably life long medical care. That's acceptable.
    But there are far too many AGP and other kinks out there... openly threatening, masturbating in women's toilets, supermarkets, kids shops, filming themselves... telling women to suck their lady dicks etc.
    No man should be allowed, by law, to enter a woman only space. It's called safeguarding.

    Men... you need to accept that you guys are responsible for 98% of violent crime!
    Women need our own safe spaces... or would you guys be happy for some guy to self ID ( remember 98% of trans women... keep their penis) and be put on the next bed to your mum in hospital... Cos I wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Genuine dysphoria" does not require any medical or surgical treatment, only therapy to help them realise that they are getting themselves stressed out about a completely pointless thing that can't be changed. Nor does an individual's mental health problem require society to play along with their delusions and pretend that anyone can change sex, or require society to completely rewrite everything we know about men and women to pander to them. Stop this nonsense now. Repeal the GRA.

      Delete
    2. Repealing the GRA in its entirety would effectively entail withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Delete
  5. I’m confused by the proposed legislation that you describe as requiring a commitment from the person to live the chosen gender for their entire lives. Where does that leave people who feel their gender is fluid and changes over time? Is the stance of the government that these people don’t exist or that they shouldn’t be recognised. Following their own logic of inclusion and self-identity, where exactly do these people stand, if not discriminated against by the proposed legislation. (The whole thing is a complete mess and utterly incoherent in my view.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You correctly highlight the issue with 'living in your newly aquired Identity'.
      According to Stonewall there are over 100 different 'identities.
      Surely any proposed legislation will need to define each of these in law? How else are we supposed to know who we may or may not be'mis-gendering' thereby, reported to the Police.
      eg.One male presenting 'demigirl' (complete with beard) explained that he was a Transwoman who will never actually transition.
      Just a man then, who wants access to women and girls spaces.
      After the Holyrood demo, I sent all MSP's a you tube copy of the speeches with the comment that I won't be voting for anyone who supports this nonsense.
      With SNP captured along with Labour and Lib Dems I even doubt there will be a reasoned debate on the matter.
      They all know the issues, each has been sent a copy of Helen Joyce's book 'Trans'. All we need to for them to develop a spine and stand up and be counted for 51% of the population. If not, they need to know their job is on the line.
      Majority rules, that's how democracy works.

      Delete
  6. The vitriol and violent threats as well as fear of prosecution like Marion Millar faced then coupled with the same activist targetting police action against a woman in NI doesn't exactly inspire any faith in self ID when it is disproportionately women affected and demonized

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...they would still be expected to make a serious, considered decision that will last for a lifetime. There's no intention to open the floodgates to people making a mockery of the process by identifying as women on Tuesday, as men on Wednesday, and as women again on Thursday. It's very important, therefore, that any poll question about self-ID reflects the serious nature of the government's proposal..."

    Of course self-ID means that people will be claiming one thing one day and another thing the next. Ever heard of Philip Bunce, businesswoman of the year because he wears the costume of his sexual fetish a few days a week...

    And no one will be able to get the damn men out of the ladies room because even asking if he holds a GRA will be a hate crime.

    What an absolute nonsense. All of this gender ideology needs to go. NOW. Humans can't change sex. That's the be all and end of it. No men in women's spaces, no matter how much they cry about it. No doubt I would be banned from the internet if I really let rip how I'm feeling about this subject. I am beyond angry.

    On the 19th September 2014, I VOWed I would vote for the SNP either until we got independence or I died, whichever came first. Now, I for one will never, ever, vote for the SNP ever again. At the May elections I spoiled my ballot, at the next elections I will be not only voting for the best party to beat the SNP in my constituency and who know what a woman is - the TORIES - but I will campaign for them too. That's how much I detest this criminally awful policy of "gender recognition". Get. It. Into. The. Sea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you think it is that the Tories are the only major party to oppose the self-ID stuff? Seems uncharacteristic of them to be more enthusiastic about women's rights than anyone else

      Delete
    2. Because "the left" is fighting internally about it. Their own voters don't care too much, but they know they can peel off some disaffected Labour and Lib Dem folk who are appalled at their natural parties' insanity. They thought it was going to be another cheap victory for them, like gay marriage. As soon as Johnson realised what a shitshow it was, they backed right off.

      Delete
  8. Meanwhile in the land of the doggers and home of the numpty Top Dog Kavanagh has an extraordinary news story - THE BBC ARE BIASED AGAINST SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE. Well knock me over with a feather who would have known that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The 19% who answered "no one" are giga based.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Would'nt a reasonable compromise be to have trans female spaces and trans male spaces as well as male and female spaces ? , and confine the debate to this rather than allow all the different computations that make the debate more complicated than it needs to be ?, this gives people their recognition and their own space ?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe Duncan Bannatyne has already converted his gyms to include a third space but has elicited some outcry within the Trans community.
      Some transwomen (biological males) say they are being 'invalidated' by such spaces. In other words upset by the notion that the general public don't see them as 'real' women.
      Autogynephiliacs in particular, crave affirmation. Nothing else will do but to be allowed into female spaces because that feeds their belief system.
      Unknown, any reasonable person might agree with your sensible suggestion. My point is we are not dealing with reasonable people , we're trying to argue against an ideology.

      Delete
    2. A reasonable compromise would be that we stick with objective reality and ignore the delusional belief systems espoused by some peoples internal monologues.

      Delete
    3. How much space do you want to build. If people just use the spaced aligned with their sex there is no issue whatsoever. It's worked fine as long as we all can remember.

      Delete
  11. Doubling infrastructure is no small thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I thought I had read it all in terms of the delusional nonsense from Sturgeon supporters but some punter says in the National we are almost there we are 93% free.

    What utter nonsense a country is either independent and free or it is not.

    Oh and there are still delusional idiots still saying Covid stopped the planned for 2020 Indyref2. No it didn't. Sturgeon said in her speech in Jan 2020 there would be no illegal referendum and it was nothing to do with Covid it was all to do with Johnson saying no to a sec30. There was no planned for 2020 referendum. It was only in the wishful thinking minds of the deluded that ever thought there was a plan for a referendum in 2020. The only thing planned was the agreed charade between Johnston and Sturgeon over sec30.

    I remain astonished at people's ability to amend the truth to suit their believe in Sturgeon as some sort of messiah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor old WGD numpty Hamish100 isnae happy about me posting on SGP calling them numpties. Perhaps he is an old dogger who is not getting his share of dogging and he gets a bit irritable. He certainly cannae count or work out a percentage - he claims my posts are 50% of the posts on SGP and that seems to be a problem for him. Too bad.

      PS Hamish 3 posts out of 31 on this stream isnae 50% you daft dogger you.

      So Hamish just where is all the missing money?

      So Hamish when will Sturgeon get around to begging for a sec30 again? Pretty sure numpties like you said it would happen straight after the May election. Has Sturgeon been too busy doing Vogue pictures.

      Delete
  13. "There's no intention to open the floodgates to people making a mockery of the process by identifying as women on Tuesday, as men on Wednesday, and as women again on Thursday." There are absolutely people who want this. Look at Pippa Bunce. Self ID is the gateway.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It highly illuminates the absolute and utter depravity of our current politicians and their hand maidens , what's next the good old MAP or Minor Attracted Person or in old money paedophile ,civilisation and society have managed fine without this pandering to people with mental disorders and ALTERING the meaning of biological sex to include fetishism and deviants
    Instead of ALL this bullshit Sturgeon and her lunatic fringe element should get on with the bloody job she was elected to do INDEPENDENCE FOR SCOTLAND if she is more interested in other issues she SHOULD STEP ASIDE and let a REAL INDEPENDENCE LEADER take over

    ReplyDelete
  15. On the contrary, the surprising thing for me is how little support this poll reveals for the 'gender-critical' position.

    GCs don't support persons born male having access to female spaces only after a certain diagnosis or with other conditions attached. Their position, as succintly summated by other commenters here, is that there is no such thing as gender, that sex is the only reality that matters, and that trans people are either deluded, or perverts, and therefore, that no form of legal change ought to be facilitated (and certainly not one bringing with it the right to enter into a single-sex space).

    Such a position gets only the support of 19% of the electorate. The position does even worse when you look at the views of women only, even though women are the group (according to the GCs) most under threat of assault/violence/erasure by the new 'gender ideology'. If you allocate ''Don't knows' in the normal way, support for biological males being allowed to change their sex (and presumably also to therefore enter female spaces) under at least some circumstances is: Yes 70%, No 30% - significantly healthier than a supermajority.

    What am I missing here? Even despite the very heated tone of the debate recently and the greater prominence of the issue in the media, the GCs clearly only represent a significant minority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you're missing here is the nuance and variety on the gender critical side - many of whom (probably most) either support, or are not opposed to, a system of legal gender recognition.

      Delete
  16. What a sad reflection of Scottish society and quite revealing that so many Scots are more socially conservative than some Tories. Not too reassuring for the idea of a fair and socialist independent country. Public opinion should NEVER dictate human rights policy. If it did, the rights for gay people that were finally granted this century would never have been. It is highly likely if it was up to public opinion that segregation would still exist in the Southern US. Human rights are for all human beings. Trans rights are human rights!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A gentle reminder, Mr M, that pre-moderation is switched on for *everyone*, and that attempting to post the same comment five times will not speed the process up.

      Delete
    2. When did it become a human right for biological men to take part in women's sport and thus gaining an unfair advantage. If it was fair for women and men to compete directly with each other in all sports then you wouldn't have them seperated as at present.

      Delete
    3. Trans rights are human rights.? Are there factually any human rights trans people are being denied? Do I have some rights they don't have? Or are there some human rights which are or should be exclusive to trans people? What might they be if there indeed are some such rights? Nobody is being denied the right to identify as a person of the opposite sex afaik. The demand for the power to compel other people to believe the same as you can however NEVER be a HUMAN right. Only a fascist elite would try to award themselves such rights and powers.

      Delete
  17. The FACT that Sturgeon opened the GRA consultation to the world and STUBBORNLY refused to publish the results until she was forced to , because the results didn't show what she HOPED they would show , indicates to me that she DELIBERATELY attempted to gerrymander the results in the woke favour . WHY would ANY FM encourage the deliberate participation of people and agencies from all over the world who had a massive vested interest in ensuring the legislation was supported , irrespective of the societal and safety impact this regressive legislation would have on Scottish WOMEN AND CHILDREN

    FM Sturgeon WHERE is the worldwide consultation on SCOTLAND'S desperation to REPEAL the TOU due to numerous breaches of the treaty by the English parliament and English MP'S both in and out of Scotland POSING FALSELY as the Westminster parliament ,surely that must hold some form of importance for people in Scotland
    Or are we less important to you than your woke disciples

    ReplyDelete
  18. The problem with these sort of questions is that the public are often deeply conservative. If the Homosexuality law reform bill that legalised gay men having consensual sex in the 1980s had been put to the people in a vote then it would probably still be illegal to this day to be gay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. I don't know if you're right about the public being socially conservative but that's the problem with democracy! You need their votes! We're not going to achieve independence by ignoring what the public think and imposing a belief on them which they consider to be at odds with scientific reality. This is just more of the vacuous 'tyranny of the majority' soundbite that we have from a poster above. Who should we listen to then - those who shout the loudest or stamp their feet the most? 


      If only NS had spent a fraction of the time she has on GRA nonsense on building the case for independence we might actually have made some progress in the last seven years. As it is, the Indy bus (even with the Dear Leader's face plastered all over it) has been returned to the depot and shows no signs of getting into gear this side of a general election.


      Delete
  19. Felix the narcissist corrupt liar has not only parked the bus wae her coupon on it she has also removed the wheels in case someone wants to use the bus for its proper purpose

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Narcissist isn't the word for it. I genuinely think the uncritical adulation she receives has unhinged her (reminiscent of the last days of Thatcher). She believes she can reshape society in her own image which appears to exclude heterosexual men. Witness her interview in Vogue where she states she never wants to shake a man's hand again - what an extraordinary thing for a national leader to say!

      Delete
    2. In what context did she say she didn't want to shake a man's hand? Was she half-joking?

      Delete
    3. I think Felix is referring to the following sentence at the start of the article:

      "There are few pleasantries: we do not bump elbows or shake hands - she says she hopes she never has to shake another hand again, especially not a man's - and make no small talk; she is ready to get cracking."

      Make of it what you will.

      Delete
    4. Yes that was the comment. As you say, make of it what you will but it seems an 'implolitic' thing to say at the very least for someone purporting to represent the whole nation. It seems to me that, over the years, she has developed a worrying personal antipathy towards straight men - indeed this may lie at the root of her persecution of Alex Salmond. Certainly her inner circle is very much dominated by women, regardless of ability, supplemented by a few equally useless token men who are fully on board with her woke agenda. Sorry, can't get on as Felix for some reason.

      Delete
  20. Count me as a decided "No one". It is not government's business to falsify documents. I actually think other countries would be wise not to consider documents valid if they stem from a country which assigns legal meaning to gender identity and/or to "sex change" surgery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps assigning gender to infants who have no say in the decision is the actual falsification in the process.

      Delete
    2. Infants also have no say on their ethnicity, the identity of their parents, their date of birth, and so on.

      Delete