He can write, like a Higher English and RE student with a thesaurus and, of course, a wodge of high church belief. Read and be dumb-struck as St Kev the Labourite sees religious fervour all around his old-time manhood [‘Keep your heid son’ anchors in square brackets. You’ll need them]:
ONCE [upon a time in Bathgate?], when it operated as a mature political party, the SNP was known for its hospitality to strangers. At times, in the heady aftermath of the 2014 independence referendum, to attend one of their conferences was to encounter evangelical fervour. “Welcome! Come away in! Have you been baptised in the spirit? Come and meet the leader!” [What is this shite?] Every spoken sentence seemed to have an imaginary exclamation mark and there were smiley emojis rising up from the conference floor. [What is this shite?] Both left and right could leave their doctrinal differences at the front door and there was room for all traditions [Mennonites?].
Now, as a consequence of easy power requiring little effort the party can pamper itself with the narcissistic and self-obsessed politics of sexual identity [Steady Kev, we respect your manhood]. When you’ve known for three years out from an election that victory is guaranteed perhaps a sense of complacency sets in and you can afford the luxury of self-indulgence. Organised groups for whom independence matters much less than bending legislation to suit the stage-managed conceit of gender grievance [Oooh look at them words and wonder at their vacuity] become attracted to a party that guarantees legislative and political power in perpetuity. When elections have been rendered meaningless [Should I self-flagellate Kev?] owing to the hopelessness of all the other parties the Government can act like a medieval court: granting favours here; extending patronage there while carrying out the odd beheading and evisceration to maintain party discipline [Wow, what a finish! Effing MAD!].
There are many claims in there, my son, but feck all examples, quotes, sources. How are we to believe you oh great one?
Just believe you and it will be fine? You’re one of those infallible ones?
See this, St Kev?
When will we get a sign the them Essenpeeites are a pestilence on the land? How come their believers are stable, the Nawite support is falling fast and the doubters are rising? Are you sure the end is nigh for Indy?
See this St Kev:
Oh, I see it now St Kev. The Essenpeeites are falling from grace. They’ve got a long to way to fall mind before they reach the Blue Meanies and the Red Tories. Are you sure it’s the end, oh great one?
Just believe in you and keep buying the Herald of the Lard?
Talking-up Scotland / Scottish media fact checking is like shooting fish in a barrel 
Religious fervour. Church objections. Losing members faster than a sieve loses water. Bigotry receding. Old ladies club.
The SNP members are from all quarters, A broad section of the community and society. They have a mutual goal and want to make the world a better place to live in. From all walks of life.
Unlike some ‘reporters’ biased bigotry. What a way to make a living spinning the coin. Spewing out nonsense. Click bait heaven failings. Readership falling. Groundhog Day at the Herald. So boring and repetitive. Give the dog a bone. Chew on morsels of inertia.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Find a minority. Demonise it. Instil fear of it in general population. Accuse political opponents of nurturing the “Demons”.
Remind you of anything?
They’ve found a “new” weapon to undermine the main party of Independence
LikeLiked by 2 people
Feminists?
LikeLike
works on any minority.
LikeLike
Kevin is a False Flag operator.
Claims to believe in Indy but always (and only) attacks the SNP.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s a lot of these F F’ers about.
LikeLike
I disagree. I think he is sincere about independence, but he is also a sincere RC and has an ‘old’ Labour socialist mindset.
I am not religious and sometimes find his religious perspective over-rides his objectivity. However, since religion is about ‘belief’, which is substantially subjective, the loss of objectivity is not surprising. I CONFESS to finding the religiosity irritating at times! But, having been born and brought up in the sectarian atmosphere in Anderston in the 40s/50s/60s I learned to cope with my irritation. And my long-standing Jags affiliation makes me feel superior to bluenoses and Tims!
On the whole, Mr McKenna has been reasonably consistent in what he has written for the Herald and the National, but, being an experienced and competent hack (no disparagement intended) he knows how to phrase things to suit the proclivities of readers.
LikeLike
There are other false flaggers @Herald-NMckay? for one. Essenpeeites are just fine- leadership not so much…
LikeLike
Religion indeed can be a very terrible thing
Man is not equipped to handle responsibly
And more often than not it ends up with
Self interested clever clogs who whip into a fever their fellow believers ( only for their own personal gain) into what can only be labelled
Bad Words
Bad Thoughts
Bad efforts
Bad actions
Bad work
Bad (memory) mindfulnesd
Just change the word Bad To Good and then outcome will be Good
If ever debate evolves into hate and anger Walk Away
Staying only leads to grief
Share the good and joy of all religions but leave the bad well alone
And should any religious zealot ever confront you
Stating that thou shall never enter Heaven
As you do not believe
Reply quite simply that if you lead your life in a caring,giving,respectful and compassionate manner for all life
Then if your God indeed does exist
How can you be refused entry
If refused then I do not want to know your God
LikeLiked by 1 person
Church members/believers support Independence. 16% declare as Catholics. 32% declare as Protestant. 2% declare as Muslim. 1% other. Not all Church goers. They have to be accommodated. The Churches have rights and privileges above the Law. The equal employment/opportunities Laws.
LikeLike
75% of the Herald’s readership declare support for Independence 55%? of the electorate support Independence
LikeLike
‘Transphobia’ definition undemocratically decided by NEC on Saturday has now been changed again undemocratically to:
‘Deliberately misgendering someone or using phrases or language to suggest their gender identity is not valid, for example referring to a trans woman as a “biological man”.
No one has to my knowledge defined ‘trans’.
Hi, ho.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone who is trans has a gender identity which does not fully correspond to the sex assigned to them at birth.
LikeLike
What is ‘sex assigned to them at birth.’?
What was at conception?
LikeLike
Sorry Alex just playing devil’s advocate with word salad.
But not sure that definition is correct as trans also includes cross-dressers and drag-artists. It is a very inclusive religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How can you see what it is at conception?
LikeLike
A bio Male but gender female person who dresses as a man would be a trans cross-dresser definition still ok
LikeLike
That is my point. You don’t have to see it for it to exist.
Sex is not assigned it just is. It can be determined by whatever scientific tools we have available.
LikeLike
Just make sure we don’t laugh at the christmas panto and it will be OK.
LikeLike
They still put it on the birth cert I think
LikeLike
The LBGT community very clearly define Trans to both M to F & F to M
It is
One who has commenced hormone treatment,living as their chosen sex
And either had or intending to undergo
Surgical transformation
This is all different from a sexual fetish such
As cross dressing which in no way can possibly be defined as Transsexual
Finally Transsexualism is NOT a sexual fetish
In any matter
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, you are way behind the times.
Basically to be trans just means you have to say you are trans and probably not even that because now we have trans babies.
I don’t know what the legal Scottish definition of trans is because right now the world has gone mad and the word woman is being challenged in the courts.
We had the definition of transphobia at the weekend. (They forgot to define phobia as well as trans)
and now it has been pre-decided by another unelected official that the word misogyny also includes biological men.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/feb/22/ill-set-no-limits-on-which-women-to-protect-from-hate-says-helena-kennedy
All on the watch of a leader who can’t even be honest about her own sexual orientation.
Hi, ho. No one will notice.
LikeLike
Anandprasad
Humans have a innate need to stick a label
On everything they encounter
Such invariably leads to the sowing of much
Doubts,wrongs and harmful consequences
And all arising from a wrong or inappropiate
Labeling
And that is exactly why Science adheres very strictly to a regime that when labelling anything so that there can be no mistake as to the identity of what is labelled
Lets assume the rules are footloose and you could get away with a glass storage bottle being labelled as Potassium chloride
Whist indeed it was Potassium Cyanide
Which then requires not only a unique name
But a specified type of container, which then must be supplied,delivered,received,stored,logged
Issued for use, returned by user,volumes recorded in/out and signed/dated all under supervision of a qualified trained person in sole charge of the whole process and subject to unannounced supervisory and regualar inspections.
This is why it is in clearly marked as specified in large print
What the contents are and more importantly
Prominently displaying a Large skull and crossbones
With the wording
Lethal if ingested
Science only ever calls a spade a spade
When all agree not only it is a spade but then goes onto to state clearly what type of spade it is
Is a chloride or cyanide one
LikeLike
Cross dressing not always fetish – can be fashion statement
LikeLike
Alex
Each to their own as long as consensually
Entered into
And
Let ye without sin cast the 1st stone
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t mention fetish but since you did.
Are you saying that no trans have Autogynephilia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia.
The topic that i am concerned with on this post is the SNP ‘definition’ of ‘transphobia’. Someone tried to maintain that trans meant a gender different from biological sex and i pointed out that this was not the definition that trans people use. Someone used the a legal definition but the SNP rule is not yet law (although no doubt that will be next). If it were the legal definition, would SNP members need to ask people if they have a GRC or have ‘lived as…’ (which is itself totally regressive stereotype). Even asking if they have a GRC is supposed to be transphobic by many trans. Girls in toilets are not supposed to ask, they are supposed to just accept the swinging dicks, as women. No problem there then. It is quite obvious that that is not what the rules means, the new SNP rule is quite clearly self-id (self-id through the back door).
I haven’t been on social media this afternoon and even though women are right now fighting for their rights today regarding the HCB, i am sure someone will have posted photos of at least one big, hairy, ugly, rapist, murdering bloke in a women’s prisons who now it will be an expulsion matter to call a biological man and a social problem, thereby breaking the SNP rules at least times all at once.
Transexual is a dated term isn’t it? It is probably transphobic to use it nowadays. Not very inclusive is it?
Transphobic includes not being sexually attracted to trans. Not SNP definition yet but just wait.
They want what women have even when women don’t want to give it. It is rape mentality.
The whole issue could have been dealt with simply and easily by a leader who wasn’t mad.
It would have been simple to women and trans groups to sit down and debate calmly. This has been tried and trans extremists refused but a good leader could have dealt with that also. Instead this has been forced undemocratically on women and they seriously pissed off. It it would be pages and pages to write about what writes are being stripped from them. It is every man’s duty to find out. Here is a quicky.
Transphobia has been invented to get rid of people like Joanna Cherry in the same way as they plotted to get rid of Denise Findlay, Gareth Wardell, Jason Michael etc.
I find it hilarious when Sturgeon worshippers say ‘but what was her motive to stitch up Salmond’. Ummmm, i wonder what it could be?
LikeLike
Anandprasad
Put all things aside but lets put the word
Transsexual under the microscope but only
Once we take a scalpel to it and separate Trans from sexual
Cast sexual to the side and lets focus upon Trans
What comes into clear view is a word that is firmly rooted in Ancient greek
Think of the words travel,travail,travesty,translate and a good few more that were born from the original Greek one
And here is the true meaning of such Greek word
To Cross with extreme difficulty
Now in a instant you comprehend and understand fully what TRANSSEXUAL
actually means
We owe a awful lot to those Greeks
LikeLike
‘Each to their own as long as consensually
Entered into
And
Let ye without sin cast the 1st stone’
That is what JKR said and she got crucified.
LikeLike
I was being a bit tongue in cheek with comments about transsexuals.
All i know is that many transsexuals are not at all happy with the trans-gender ideology as shown by this just from a couple of hours ago
LikeLike
The SNP Final Draft of the new rule has this in introduction.
‘Trans as a term is used to describe people whose gender is not the same as or does not sit comfortably with the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using a variety of terms, and do not need to have undergone any medical or social transition to be described as trans.’
Funny how they are so sure of what transphobia is but trans not so much. As long as people are expelled that is the important thing.
LikeLike
Let’s consider what you present here as the SNP’s draft definition – I assume you quote accurately and fully:
1) ‘‘Trans as a term is used to describe people whose gender is not the same as or DOES NOT FIT COMFORTABLY WITH the sex they were assigned at birth. (my emphasis)
2) “Trans people may describe themselves using a VARIETY OF TERMS, and do not need to have undergone any medical or social transition to be described as trans.”
Now let’s compare and contrast the terms of definition used in the Gender Recognition Act 2004, taken from the General Guide for all Users.
“2.1 Transsexual people have a deep conviction that their gender identity DOES NOT MATCH their appearance and/or anatomy. This terminology is used for the purpose of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and this guidance, but people in this position may refer to themselves as ‘trans’, ‘transgender’ OR IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
2.5 Acquired gender refers to the gender in which a transsexual person LIVES AND PRESENTS to the world. This is not the gender that they were registered in at birth, but it is the gender in which they would wish TO BE RECOGNISED.
2.6 Gender reassignment is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, section 7. A person has this protected characteristic if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone the process of REASSIGNING their gender. ”
2.7 Gender Recognition is the PROCESS whereby a transsexual person MAY APPLY FOR legal recognition of his or her ACQUIRED GENDER. The process is established under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, as amended by subsequent legislation, including the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014.
In substance, after comparing and contrasting the two sets of definitions (one a draft and the latter based on formal UK government legislation and its guidance), what would you point to as crucial differences? And in the light of this consideration, why should someone yet to form a definitive view take as reasonable, justifiable the latter part of the claim in this, your own sentence – “Funny how they (presumably you mean the SNP, or part of it) are so sure of what transphobia is but trans not so much”?
The guidance for the 2004 Act also notes: “Unlike most courts or tribunals, the GRP (Gender Recognition panel) will not normally require a hearing to determine an application. Almost all applications will be decided ‘on the papers”. So presumably the definitions in the 2004 Act provided a legal basis for ‘being sure’ – to use your language?
Now I have no basis on which to determine the strengths and weakness of the 2004 Act for those most closely concerned with its application but as others have indicated btl on this site, it seems to provide a useful foundation for understanding and, importantly, for providing perspective.
Wider public consideration of the 2004 Act’s contents may help generate more light and less heat to the benefit of all concerned. Can one presume we would all prefer to have less ‘heat’ and more ‘light’?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He has to write something I suppose. He’s getting bored with waiting, like the rest of us. Like MacWhirter he’s easily forgettable.
LikeLike
When you keep an Army waiting and then select a lesser mission…they get a tad upset. When you insult 52% of the Army…they get very upset.
I leader should Unite Clans not favour one.
LikeLike
Religion and gender seem two different issues to me, I am not religious.
I can appreciate the religious belief about God and the traditional view people have in the church that there is man and woman and any other sexual activity is immoral. That however may seem ideal to some but not in fact reality. There has always been lesbian and homosexual sex and relationships.
I personally however cannot get my head around trans. No idea what causes that. I will just have to accept what a minority of people feel about their sexuality. I do however think that the law as proposed by the GRA is wrong. The majority of people do not want it or it’s assumed effects on society.
Kevin can have any view he likes as we all can. I read his articles but do not always agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Deliberately misgendering someone or using phrases or language to suggest their gender identity is not valid, for example referring to a trans woman as a “biological man”.
Lordy lord.
Hermeneutic Ontology
Click to access d-Hermeneutic-Ontology.pdf
LikeLike
Sorry. You can access that at www(dot)bu(dot)edu/philo/files/2019/09/d-Hermeneutic-Ontology(dot)pdf
LikeLike
I’ve not paid too much attention to the GRA ‘issue’ to date. I’ve viewed it as something involving social policy implementation challenges (problems and yes, dilemmas) to be resolved by people of good sense and goodwill – not unlike the challenges of introducing other progressive social policies in the past.
However, the profile of the GRA topic on this site over recent days has belatedly prompted me to delve a little. I am especially grateful to those that have emphasised the relevance of the basic foundations of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
In all the concerns about definitions now appearing in btl threads here, I’ve found it useful to visit the definitions/terms used in the 2004 Act. Indeed the wider guidance on the terms of the 2004 Act I found a worthwhile, informative read.
See HM Courts and Tribunal – Service Gender Recognition Act 2004: The General Guide for all Users.
Click to access t455-eng.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Readers of Wings might have noticed me banging on about phenomenology, which is “the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view”. So without a bit of phenomenology, it’s not possible to support the capacity for individual or collective AGENCY. The phenomenology of gender/sex is already well established, as is the phenomenology of embodiment.
Rethinking Agency: A Phenomenological Approach to
Embodiment and Agentic Capacities
Click to access Coole-2005-Political_Studies.pdf
LikeLike
Sorry again. You can access that at https://hscif(dot)org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Coole-2005-Political_Studies(dot)pdf
LikeLike
Oh that’s annoying. Sorry.
LikeLike
St Kev as many others are pushing the trans issue to keep the pot boiling, the problems he portrays for SNP are metro-thinking.
The trans issue barely registers as relevant to the vast majority of Scots, yet day after day it is pushed as crucial, despite having been shelved by both the UK and Holyrood Governments, despite the faint aroma of Eau de Latrine (made in London).
Yes the issues must be addressed, but who does it benefit to obsess over it weeks away from a crucial election which may change Scotland’s futures forever ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
All legal systems need to refer to a foundational moral theory, if they hope to be universal in outlook and application. The Natural law provides such a theory, which is compatible with both cognitive linguistics and the bio-neurological sciences. Forcing Scots law to accommodate anti-foundational ideology (gender-ideology), disables Scots law’s capacity to reflect biological reality and support the interests of justice. So this issue is crucial to whether justice is possible in Scotland.
Of course, it should be remembered that British nationalism undermines Scotland’s legal identity, in pretty much the same as gender-ideology undermines the legal identity of natal women.
LikeLike
“.. whether justice is possible in Scotland” Might it be possible – is it conceivable – that you are now ‘exaggerating’ somewhat for … who knows?
And then you write this: “British nationalism undermines Scotland’s legal identity, in pretty much the same as gender-ideology undermines the legal identity of natal women.”
I’m struggling with the proposed equivalence: is it based on ‘pretty much the same’ foundational moral theory and if so how; is it based on ‘pretty much the same’ Natural law and if so how; or because it is similarly relatable to the bio-neurological sciences? The basis of the ‘pretty much the same as’ claim is eye catching but to me, as yet mystifying.
LikeLike
Scotland has a legal identity, defined in international law, which British nationalism denies (see Brexit). Natal women also have a well defined legal identity that gender-ideology denies. Natural law is simply a foundational moral theory that happens to be compatible with cognitive linguistics and the bio-neurological sciences. It also challenges Westminster’s assumed legal authority over Scotland, which denies us our natural rights (see Brexit).
LikeLike
Neither British nationalism or gender-ideology are compatible with the rule of recognition. Britain is a unitary state, not One Nation. Women are adult human females, not an socially constructed idea or stereotype.
The International Law of Recognition
https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/24/2/667/494129
LikeLike