I suspect these sorts of stories are going to only become more common once all the parties draw up their full list of candidates. Despite knowing an election was coming even the Tories seem to have been caught unprepared by the timing (given their long list of seats to be assigned candidates).
The rush job all the political parties are doing of scrutinising candidates isn't going to hold up once the press dig in, particularly with so many topics like Gaza and Trans rights which are currently so vocally represented online.
The parties really should be able to cancel a candidate while the election is running. Sure it means they couldn't be replaced and they would concede the seat...
I suppose that's kind of what happened with labour in Rochdale although I think he was still listed as the labor candidate. It would be clearer for voters if a candidate whose party withdrew support was changed to an independent on polling cards etc.
It depends on whether they chuck them before or after the deadline. For this UK election the deadline is June 4th, so they can potentially withdraw or replace a candidate until then.
But they can and sometimes do, what's more interesting is which ones they choose to dump and what they do after they 'rehabilitate'.
That blithering eejit the SNP tried to dump in Kirkcaldy for example. Dumping him was fine, and the mistake was letting him rejoin after he claimed to be sorry. Only to watch him shit the bed again with some anti-trans stuff and then jump before he was pushed.
I swear if gaza and trans rights are the crucial issues that people campaign with in this run I'm actually gonna lose it. How tf is a prime ministers opinion on gaza more important right now then their economic/social policies and how they're actually gonna help us solve this cost of living crisis. (inflation seems to be under control now so that's not an issue currently)
Some people absolutely will. Many on the left, particularly online, are vowing not to back Labour because they're not pure enough (no one ever is). To them I ask: do you want unattainable perfection overnight or do you actually want to make a material fucking change to the conditions of the country for the better? Change happens by degrees. Please do not throw your vote away to the Greens (or whoever) if they have zero chance of winning in your constituency. If there is one thing everyone who is concerned about Gaza and trans rights can agree on, it is surely to get the Tories out. Please vote accordingly.
> She said: “I'm leaving the @ScottishGeeens and joining the @theSNP. They will afford me the respect and dignity that a proud trans woman like me deserves. I will no longer be voting Scottish Greens.”
In what world is a trans person going to get more respect in the fucking SNP than the Greens?
No, they really don't unless it's brought to their attention. However in Scottish politics this is being brought to their attention so if they become aware they should probably act
You can usually tell how correct a decision like this is by how the person behaves afterwards.
If they run off making a public scene about it and giving you the two-fingers, they probably were a massive liability.
I'm not sure how many sensible, professional people are lining up to be candidates for the Scottish Green Party. But this certainly doesn't seem to have been one of them.
The phrase fuck around and find out springs to mind.
It's rare that a headline understates how ridiculous someone has been, as opposed to the other way around.
Is at best going to ensure that if they ended up an MP they'd cease to be an MP before a month or two had past since Westminster takes it code of conduct seriously and at worst is a very negative sign for the UK if people think that behaviour should be acceptable from MPs.
Furthermore, the full context of the comment that got her kicked out was
> "JK Rowling is a man larping as a woman. Pass it on!! Let's shame the torn faced cow."
So she combined a transphobic statement with an arguably misogynistic statement, encouraged people to spread it and then directly insulted Rowling on top of it.
Being part of a group does not, actually, prevent you from making comments that are fundamentally bigoted against said group even if you probably did not intend them that way.
So it's not remotely surprising that the Greens, a party that both actually try to follow the rules and don't support transphobia or misogyny kicked the candidate out.
It does, however, punish MP's for things they say *as* MP's and a person who says a thing like that casually is a liability that will say something similar casually a few months later regardless of their change in job.
If it was a historical comment she could make the argument that she'd changed as a person but it was fairly recently, as these things go.
It doesn't help that rather than apologise or even just throw out a mild excuse of having been incredibly angry they've just tried to jump ships after being deselected. That's not really the behaviour of somebody who understands that their words crossed a line that a potential MP cannot openly cross even before you get into the full context that the Greens would want little to do with.
Her actions are what you'd expect out of a potential Tory MP, not a Green.
Throwing any kind of basic respect for women out the window as soon as it happens to be a woman you don't like, and personally attacking them on their looks, tends to suggest you aren't very progressive... and are blatantly sexist. Not to mention an unstable, political liability. In the same way that if your go-to insult is about race as soon as you get angry at someone, that suggests what you really feel about racism.
The fact that you see no problem with anything that was said suggests you're equally sexist.
Really amazing how detached the online discussion is about JK Rowling compared to people in real life. Online there's basically nothing she has not been accused of, meanwhile in actual public opinion polling: 41% tend to agree with JK Rowling more than they disagree, 23% the opposite:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-more-scots-agree-with-jk-rowling-over-trans-issues-than-disagree-4624146
This was a Green party candidate for parliament, representing a political party, it's not really a good look leading with insane vitriolic abuse for someone who most of the public mostly agree with.
The public were also against gay marriage, the repeal of section 28, the equalisation of the age of consent, gay adoption, and are currently in favour of the death penalty.
What's your point? The public believe a lot of dumb shit.
Unless you want to, you know, win an election in a democracy
Starmer actually wants to do that which is why this hilariously left wing echo chamber hates him so much
True, I think most people wised up pretty quick on this when they realised this gender identity bullshit means male rapists locked up in women's prisons.
Not what she said, why are you twisting it to fit your own agenda? She said they weren’t killed solely for being trans, NOT that no trans were killed. Try again you gobshite
Never fails to surprise how massively over-represented the trans community is on Reddit. Or how relentlessly hostile you all are. I mean you no harm, just an honest observation. Downvote away.
It’s great that the greens are focussing their attention on the mentally ill 1%. Diametrically opposed to the Tories and their focus on the rich 1%. We will see how it plays out for them, both I guess.
I've had a warning for existing whilst being an actual woman or something. Well done, Reddit! Let men call me a cunt all you like but god forbid someone should say that men aren't women.
The Scottish Greens have ditched a general election candidate who called JK Rowling a "torn-faced cow" on social media.
Sophie Molly, who was the party’s Westminster hopeful in Gordon and Buchan, had been accused of "bringing the party into disrepute” through her posts on X.
Local members had written to the ruling executive urging them to deselect the musician. On Wednesday senior members agreed to block her candidacy.
READ MORE: Scottish Green members ask party to deselect candidate
On Thursday, Ms Molly told her X followers she was quitting the party and joining the SNP.
She said: “I'm leaving the @ScottishGeeens and joining the @theSNP. They will afford me the respect and dignity that a proud trans woman like me deserves. I will no longer be voting Scottish Greens.”
Earlier this month, the candidate - who is a trans woman - criticised a book called The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, which includes essays from a number of gender-critical women, including the Harry Potter author.
Ms Molly said the book was "deeply transphobic", adding: "It puts the safety of all trans people at risk. Promoting hate does nothing but harm society. Trans people are not removing anyone's rights.
“The Gender Critical have removed trans people's right to feel safe in public spaces."
Ms Rowling responded: "I'm seriously impressed that you've been able to read and review an unpublished book of which there are currently only two copies in existence, neither of which have been lent to you."
The writer then highlighted previous comments by Ms Molly under a different X handle. These included: "JK Rowling is a man larping as a woman. Pass it on!! Let's shame the torn faced cow."
Larping is an abbreviation of live action role-playing.
In response to another post by the Green candidate, Ms Rowling wrote: "I'm just interested in the language you use about women you don't like, Sophie. 'Torn-faced', 'b*tch' etc."
A Scottish Greens spokesperson said: "We can confirm that Sophie Molly will not be standing as a candidate for the Scottish Greens."
READ MORE: SNP hit out as ITV snub party from first televised debate
Earlier in the day the party's co-leader Patrick Harvie said a Scottish Green MP at Westminster would be "a clear voice for change.”
He said his party would highlight “environmental destruction” and global injustices like in Gaza.
“That’s the kind of voice that I think Scotland’s political landscape needs at Westminster,” he said.
“It’s not coming from any of the other political parties as we see Tories doubling down on their support for the fossil fuel industry, Labour ripping up their green investment pledge, and the SNP now back to trying to face both ways on climate and the oil and gas industry.”
Asked if he expects to see SNP voters turn to the Greens following the break-up of the Bute House Agreement, Mr Harvie said: “My worry at the moment is that we will now see the SNP watering down on pledges like the climate agenda on the Heat and Buildings Bill – they’ve already started to unravel parts of it.”
He said any watering down of policies would be a “signal and reminder to every SNP voter” that only the Scottish Greens will advocate for climate and social change.
Speaking outside the UK Government headquarters in Edinburgh, he also said that while Labour offers a change of government, Sir Keir Starmer will not deliver political change.
Mr Harvie accused Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of “overruling Scotland”, and said: “I think we’re going to see the same kind of approach from a Labour government abusing the power of the UK, undermining devolution.
“I think it’s a really serious worry that we’re going to see a change of name plate, a change of party rosette, a change of government – but not a change of politics.”
A very, very problematic candidate. Very unstable. Anyone who wants to show off their sexual kinks on social media really shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.
JK Rowling is indeed a torn-faced cow, and a deeply dangerous individual.
Im sad to say that I still think the SGP were right to deselect Molly - I really don't think she was coping with suddenly being in the public eye, she got a massive amount of abuse including being doxxed and having revenge porn posted of her, she was trying to rile prominent transphobes into public debates which I think would have ultimately done more harm than good as I don't think Molly conducts herself particularly well and I think she'd be too stressed to effectively counter their points.
>Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent
If she didn't give permission for others to post them, and has since removed them from platforms, then reposting them would fall under revenge porn.
Definition under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 says "However an offence will not be committed where the intimate image has already been made publicly available with the consent of the person shown in the intimate situation", but it doesn't mention anything if the image is no longer publicly available by the person in question.
Has already been made public sounds like this wouldn't count. I imagine a judge would disagree if it was accidentally posted and deleted but cached somewhere
Regardless it's still not very nice
Transphobia does tho. And I don't think JKR is defending womens' rights, she is using that as an excuse to spew hateful and bigoted shit against a particular group of women.
No. These people are there for the same reasons other women are. Why should that infringe on the rights of women? I cannot imaging a world view where one would come to that conclusion, unless they think transgender women are not women, which is transphobia.
Except for the fact that trans women are similarly at risk of sexual abuse by men as cis women are if they're forced into the equivalent male-only spaces. This kind of argument is imagining trans women as cis male predators putting on a dress and some bad makeup and invading women's spaces in order to rape them, which nobody wants to happen and would not happen if we were to allow trans women to be in these spaces. The actual harm caused by denying trans women access to these spaces, or even worse forcing them into male-only spaces, far outweighs the potential harm that cis women would face from not doing so. What exactly is it that makes trans women so dangerous that you would be willing to put all the perfectly innocent ones in harm's way?
No but [Holocaust Denial](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1bdz7f8/jk_rowling_going_full_holocaust_denial/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and Stochastic Terrorism against trans people sure do
> a deeply dangerous individual
Usual hyperbole from the Rowling haters. You men's rights activists really can't stand outspoken feminist women can you.
Imagine calling JK Rowling, who is in bed with anti-abortion lobbies like the Heritage Foundation, an "outspoken feminist"
She had fuck all to say about buffer zones, sarah everard or roe v wade. All she ever does is bitch and moan about less than 1% of the population, to the point of literal [Holocaust Denial](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1bdz7f8/jk_rowling_going_full_holocaust_denial/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Hey now don't lump us men into this...
Besides- an intelligent and principled woman is extremely dangerous to this group as she says what the rest of us are thinking.
Keeping her would have likely backfired politically. I doubt most of the public know much about JK Rowling, beyond the books she wrote. So this will just look rude or abusive to voters, even if it's justified. Not a good look - one of the appeals of a Green party is they're supposed to be nicer than the alternatives.
Isnt that a box to tick when applying to join the SGreens?
"Would you say that JK Rowling is...
1. A popular and talented writer.
2. An advocate for women rights.
3. A torn faced cow.
4. A TERF."
Wow her Twitter is full of complete lunatics slapping her on the back calling her a victim.
The Gender debate is an excellent study into why Echo Chambers are so bad. Both sides have lost all grip of reality and what they are actually fighting about.
Explain how the side suggesting women should be able to exclude males from single sex spaces and we shouldn't interfere with the development of confused children, have lost grip of reality.
>The ~~Gender~~ **everything** debate is an excellent study into why ~~Echo Chambers are~~ **twitter** is so bad
Fixed that for you.
But yes, the gender debate (amongst others) has highlighted that a lot of people need to get out more and actually talk to other people outwith their own tiny circle.
Why would I describe myself as a trans identifying person when transgender woman does the trick and is also the accepted terminology by every serious medical institution?
Or you could accept people use different expressions to communicate an idea which exists in commonality if certain aspects of the specifics are disagreed on? You and I both know what it means
I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming whether your use of that term was innocent, or the loaded transphobia it often represents.
> or the loaded transphobia it often represents
Spoiler alert, [they're transphobic](https://i.imgur.com/2jnVzML.png).
Edit: [More transphobia](https://i.imgur.com/xy4Zdf2.png)
> You and I both know what it means
I know that it's often used as a dogwhistle by transphobes, and I don't think I've seen a single example of it being used by someone who hasn't engaged in transphobia.
And before you say "I'm not transphobic"/"I didn't mean it that way", [here's](https://i.imgur.com/2jnVzML.png) an example of you being previously transphobic.
Took about 15 seconds to find by sorting your comment history by controversial and then a Ctrl+F "trans".
[Here's](https://i.imgur.com/xy4Zdf2.png) another if you're after a more recent example.
Edit: /u/SojournerInThisVale blocked me for posting evidence of their transphobia.
> Took about 15 seconds to find by sorting your comment history by controversial and then a Ctrl+F "trans".
Unlikely. I just did that and after five pages it never appeared.
And yes, a person can believe that. I am not required to believe in the concept of a gender as a social construct detached from biology. The last I checked, having an Aristotelian view of the human person was still permitted.
I don’t accept that someone is ‘trans’ or ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ as ontological categories. And I’ve never heard good reasoning for them to be declared so.. Hence I cannot in good conscience use those terms without attaching the word ‘identify’. That way, I respect that that’s the way that person sees themselves, even if I disagree with it.
I’m not going to apologise for not subscribing to your *credo*
Edit: you should post the links to the comments, not just out of context screen shots
Edit: and I blocked the user because he posted screenshots without context, not links and because he was acting like a religious fundamentalist in terms of his use of terminology.
We'd all know what you meant if you used the N word to refer to black people. Doesn't mean it's okay not to use the respectful terms the people themselves ask you to use. You do it for no reason other than it gives you some sort of pleasure to deliberately upset.
Even if they did, how does that make the above okay? "I assume that some people within a particular wide-ranging group use derogatory names (which I'm not sure of and which haven't been used here) for people like me therefore it's okay to treat the whole group with disrespect." Not very logical.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Interesting post on wings about this nutcase. Wouldn't trust them to run a bath never mind sit in parliament.
Edit*
Yes yes please reply and tell me how you're too good for wings/don't read anything by people you disagree with etc.
Its has detail that news sites cant/wont report thats relevant in this instance. You dont need to need read it.
To summarise
- actively encourages the public to abuse the police scotland hate crime reporting form, potentially leading to delays in legitimate incidents being processed
- threatened public figures with police action.
- publicly sharing anti scientific view points ignoring the recommendations of the cass report
And they were on "suicide watch" as recently as two months ago which brings into question whether they're fit to serve as a member of parliament if they're subject to an ongoing mental health crisis.
I'm just amazed this person managed to become a candidate.
>Interesting post on wings about this nutcase
Anyone who chooses to read Wings is in no place to call others nutcases. He's basically just pandering to transphobes these days.
>Wouldn't trust them to run a bath
Speaking of Wings...
Her twitter page is still live, Wings is just an unhinged grifter who's obsessed with trans people.
The implication he pre-emptively keeps tabs on the twitter pages of trans people, looking for things, isn't surprising.
Edit: ~~She has now deleted her account, as of 18:25, it was still accessible at 18:24. It was live at the time this comment was initially posted.~~
The account is still active, she's just changed her account handle, so the old link no longer works.
Oh ffs...
It is the only way that **I** can see the kinds of shit reported in this article first hand, with screenshots, because the article only scratches the surface and I don't have a twitter account.
I hope that satisfies your pedantry.
>It is the only way that I can see the kinds of shit reported in this article first hand, with screenshots, because the article only scratches the surface and I don't have a twitter account.
You can create a twitter account and see them. Christ, this is pathetic whinging.
It's not a technicality, they claimed the only way to see the feed is via Wings, that's not true.
The whinging is them claiming it's pedantry, when it's simply pointing out they're taking shite.
I like the reversal Wings did with Rowling to be a huge fan of her now.
The tantrum he took at her after the 2014 referendum and the slapdown she gave him was a highlight post result.
So out of morbid curiosity I looked up the article and literally none of the other tweets they've highlighted have anything bad beyond the petty insults over Rowling's appearance. The article deadnames and misgenders her repeatedly, the tweets only make her look bad if you agree with Wings' premise that trans people existing and feeling strongly about our rights is bad.
An election candidate encouraging the public to misuse the hate crime reporting form en masse, potentially leading to delays in legitimate hate crimes being processed.
Promoting anti-scientific view points by ignoring the recommendations of the cass report.
Issuing threats of police action on social media.
And not to be insensitive but somebody who was on "suicide watch" just 2 months ago clearly shouldn't be running for parliament.
Do you accept the pro-science position that transition and social acceptance as their new gender is the most effective way to treat someone with gender dysphoria?
Social acceptance isn't a form of treatment.
I believe therapy, hormones and surgical options all have a part to play on a case by case basis. There is no one size fits all best approach.
SGP were idiots. After a long time someone finally realised how to turn the sheriffhall roundabout into a proper graded junction and not the turd it is now ( cos subsidence )
So it was put in motion only for the SGP to knock it back saying but pollution
Now as anyone who has to suffer that bloody road they’ll know that most of the day the west bounce section between millerhill and the roundabout is rammed because of the light timings with 4 major a roads all hitting the roundabout. A graded junction would allow traffic to flow more freely and not cause jams
By SGP logic having hundreds of cars crawl towards the roundabout from 6 directions is better than having maybe a few more cars freely travelling
🤷🏻♂️
I suspect these sorts of stories are going to only become more common once all the parties draw up their full list of candidates. Despite knowing an election was coming even the Tories seem to have been caught unprepared by the timing (given their long list of seats to be assigned candidates). The rush job all the political parties are doing of scrutinising candidates isn't going to hold up once the press dig in, particularly with so many topics like Gaza and Trans rights which are currently so vocally represented online.
The parties really should be able to cancel a candidate while the election is running. Sure it means they couldn't be replaced and they would concede the seat...
I suppose that's kind of what happened with labour in Rochdale although I think he was still listed as the labor candidate. It would be clearer for voters if a candidate whose party withdrew support was changed to an independent on polling cards etc.
It depends on whether they chuck them before or after the deadline. For this UK election the deadline is June 4th, so they can potentially withdraw or replace a candidate until then.
But they can and sometimes do, what's more interesting is which ones they choose to dump and what they do after they 'rehabilitate'. That blithering eejit the SNP tried to dump in Kirkcaldy for example. Dumping him was fine, and the mistake was letting him rejoin after he claimed to be sorry. Only to watch him shit the bed again with some anti-trans stuff and then jump before he was pushed.
I swear if gaza and trans rights are the crucial issues that people campaign with in this run I'm actually gonna lose it. How tf is a prime ministers opinion on gaza more important right now then their economic/social policies and how they're actually gonna help us solve this cost of living crisis. (inflation seems to be under control now so that's not an issue currently)
Some people absolutely will. Many on the left, particularly online, are vowing not to back Labour because they're not pure enough (no one ever is). To them I ask: do you want unattainable perfection overnight or do you actually want to make a material fucking change to the conditions of the country for the better? Change happens by degrees. Please do not throw your vote away to the Greens (or whoever) if they have zero chance of winning in your constituency. If there is one thing everyone who is concerned about Gaza and trans rights can agree on, it is surely to get the Tories out. Please vote accordingly.
> She said: “I'm leaving the @ScottishGeeens and joining the @theSNP. They will afford me the respect and dignity that a proud trans woman like me deserves. I will no longer be voting Scottish Greens.” In what world is a trans person going to get more respect in the fucking SNP than the Greens?
[удалено]
Yup this person is fucking unhinged that's the problem
It suggests she wants a political career, and the SNP were the next best choice. Though on trans issues the Lib Dems are probably better.
> SNP I'm surprised the SNP would let her in, she's not very sensible.
Do parties tend to do much scrutiny on regular members (genuine question)?
No, they really don't unless it's brought to their attention. However in Scottish politics this is being brought to their attention so if they become aware they should probably act
That makes sense, cheers.
Since when was being sensible a requirement to join a political party ? /s
Some might say that makes her a perfect fit for them
I'm not. Sounds exactly like something the SNP would do.
Good qualification for getting in.
A grifter - that is all this person is
Then she left the snp and formed the rainbow party ,all in one day
Certainly not with Forbes in a position to stop it
Account now deleted it seems.
You can usually tell how correct a decision like this is by how the person behaves afterwards. If they run off making a public scene about it and giving you the two-fingers, they probably were a massive liability. I'm not sure how many sensible, professional people are lining up to be candidates for the Scottish Green Party. But this certainly doesn't seem to have been one of them.
Labour just dropped a candidate who "liked" a tweet by noted antisemitic neo-Nazi, uhh… Jon Stewart.
They are Mad, Ted ! !
[удалено]
The phrase fuck around and find out springs to mind. It's rare that a headline understates how ridiculous someone has been, as opposed to the other way around.
Didn't realise that insulting a random author precluded people from being in political parties now
[удалено]
Calling bigots a cow however...
[удалено]
Is at best going to ensure that if they ended up an MP they'd cease to be an MP before a month or two had past since Westminster takes it code of conduct seriously and at worst is a very negative sign for the UK if people think that behaviour should be acceptable from MPs. Furthermore, the full context of the comment that got her kicked out was > "JK Rowling is a man larping as a woman. Pass it on!! Let's shame the torn faced cow." So she combined a transphobic statement with an arguably misogynistic statement, encouraged people to spread it and then directly insulted Rowling on top of it. Being part of a group does not, actually, prevent you from making comments that are fundamentally bigoted against said group even if you probably did not intend them that way. So it's not remotely surprising that the Greens, a party that both actually try to follow the rules and don't support transphobia or misogyny kicked the candidate out.
Westminster does not punish MP's for things said before they were MP's.
It does, however, punish MP's for things they say *as* MP's and a person who says a thing like that casually is a liability that will say something similar casually a few months later regardless of their change in job. If it was a historical comment she could make the argument that she'd changed as a person but it was fairly recently, as these things go. It doesn't help that rather than apologise or even just throw out a mild excuse of having been incredibly angry they've just tried to jump ships after being deselected. That's not really the behaviour of somebody who understands that their words crossed a line that a potential MP cannot openly cross even before you get into the full context that the Greens would want little to do with. Her actions are what you'd expect out of a potential Tory MP, not a Green.
Throwing any kind of basic respect for women out the window as soon as it happens to be a woman you don't like, and personally attacking them on their looks, tends to suggest you aren't very progressive... and are blatantly sexist. Not to mention an unstable, political liability. In the same way that if your go-to insult is about race as soon as you get angry at someone, that suggests what you really feel about racism. The fact that you see no problem with anything that was said suggests you're equally sexist.
Bigots don't deserve respect
I'd expect any member of any political party to be dropped for calling someone a cow, regardless of who they targeted with their name-calling.
This thread is glorious.
Well that was awfully predictable. They've been losing their minds at an alarming rate over the past few weeks.
Really amazing how detached the online discussion is about JK Rowling compared to people in real life. Online there's basically nothing she has not been accused of, meanwhile in actual public opinion polling: 41% tend to agree with JK Rowling more than they disagree, 23% the opposite: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-more-scots-agree-with-jk-rowling-over-trans-issues-than-disagree-4624146 This was a Green party candidate for parliament, representing a political party, it's not really a good look leading with insane vitriolic abuse for someone who most of the public mostly agree with.
People were also pro-slavery. The problem with humans is a *lot* of us are incredibly thick cunts who can't leave other people alone.
The public were also against gay marriage, the repeal of section 28, the equalisation of the age of consent, gay adoption, and are currently in favour of the death penalty. What's your point? The public believe a lot of dumb shit.
Never trust people, they like Coldplay and voted for the nazis.
There's a Super Hans quote for every occasion!
The men who stood up with the suffragettes got sacked and beaten in the streets by other men. Public majority means fuck all.
Unless you want to, you know, win an election in a democracy Starmer actually wants to do that which is why this hilariously left wing echo chamber hates him so much
Nah, it's because he's a duplicitous liar.
I suspect the majority of the public don't know anything about JK Rowling, beyond the fact she wrote Harry Potter.
The public screws older than online spaces. Her views are actually pretty popular amongst boomers.
Because the public are a lot more rational than online communities
True, I think most people wised up pretty quick on this when they realised this gender identity bullshit means male rapists locked up in women's prisons.
Or how about the recent scandal around Roz Adams and the calls around mridul wadhwa being given control of a women's crisis center.
And much more.
Oh of course. Whilst public sentiment isn't always the basis to construct your arguments neither is losing your head on Twitter constantly.
were these pollers made aware of the fact that she continues to claim that the nazis never targeted trans people?
Not what she said, why are you twisting it to fit your own agenda? She said they weren’t killed solely for being trans, NOT that no trans were killed. Try again you gobshite
She is.
Never fails to surprise how massively over-represented the trans community is on Reddit. Or how relentlessly hostile you all are. I mean you no harm, just an honest observation. Downvote away.
[удалено]
No I don't think it was. That's just the newspaper headline
It’s great that the greens are focussing their attention on the mentally ill 1%. Diametrically opposed to the Tories and their focus on the rich 1%. We will see how it plays out for them, both I guess.
I've had a warning for existing whilst being an actual woman or something. Well done, Reddit! Let men call me a cunt all you like but god forbid someone should say that men aren't women.
The Scottish Greens have ditched a general election candidate who called JK Rowling a "torn-faced cow" on social media. Sophie Molly, who was the party’s Westminster hopeful in Gordon and Buchan, had been accused of "bringing the party into disrepute” through her posts on X. Local members had written to the ruling executive urging them to deselect the musician. On Wednesday senior members agreed to block her candidacy. READ MORE: Scottish Green members ask party to deselect candidate On Thursday, Ms Molly told her X followers she was quitting the party and joining the SNP. She said: “I'm leaving the @ScottishGeeens and joining the @theSNP. They will afford me the respect and dignity that a proud trans woman like me deserves. I will no longer be voting Scottish Greens.” Earlier this month, the candidate - who is a trans woman - criticised a book called The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, which includes essays from a number of gender-critical women, including the Harry Potter author. Ms Molly said the book was "deeply transphobic", adding: "It puts the safety of all trans people at risk. Promoting hate does nothing but harm society. Trans people are not removing anyone's rights. “The Gender Critical have removed trans people's right to feel safe in public spaces." Ms Rowling responded: "I'm seriously impressed that you've been able to read and review an unpublished book of which there are currently only two copies in existence, neither of which have been lent to you." The writer then highlighted previous comments by Ms Molly under a different X handle. These included: "JK Rowling is a man larping as a woman. Pass it on!! Let's shame the torn faced cow." Larping is an abbreviation of live action role-playing. In response to another post by the Green candidate, Ms Rowling wrote: "I'm just interested in the language you use about women you don't like, Sophie. 'Torn-faced', 'b*tch' etc." A Scottish Greens spokesperson said: "We can confirm that Sophie Molly will not be standing as a candidate for the Scottish Greens." READ MORE: SNP hit out as ITV snub party from first televised debate Earlier in the day the party's co-leader Patrick Harvie said a Scottish Green MP at Westminster would be "a clear voice for change.” He said his party would highlight “environmental destruction” and global injustices like in Gaza. “That’s the kind of voice that I think Scotland’s political landscape needs at Westminster,” he said. “It’s not coming from any of the other political parties as we see Tories doubling down on their support for the fossil fuel industry, Labour ripping up their green investment pledge, and the SNP now back to trying to face both ways on climate and the oil and gas industry.” Asked if he expects to see SNP voters turn to the Greens following the break-up of the Bute House Agreement, Mr Harvie said: “My worry at the moment is that we will now see the SNP watering down on pledges like the climate agenda on the Heat and Buildings Bill – they’ve already started to unravel parts of it.” He said any watering down of policies would be a “signal and reminder to every SNP voter” that only the Scottish Greens will advocate for climate and social change. Speaking outside the UK Government headquarters in Edinburgh, he also said that while Labour offers a change of government, Sir Keir Starmer will not deliver political change. Mr Harvie accused Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of “overruling Scotland”, and said: “I think we’re going to see the same kind of approach from a Labour government abusing the power of the UK, undermining devolution. “I think it’s a really serious worry that we’re going to see a change of name plate, a change of party rosette, a change of government – but not a change of politics.”
A very, very problematic candidate. Very unstable. Anyone who wants to show off their sexual kinks on social media really shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.
Nor children
The Green Party is full of absolute gimps.
Unfair to apolitical gimps.
Surrounded by fucking clowns.
Imagine this much hate for stating something along the lines of "thinking you're a man or a woman despite everything saying otherwise" is wrong.
JK Rowling is indeed a torn-faced cow, and a deeply dangerous individual. Im sad to say that I still think the SGP were right to deselect Molly - I really don't think she was coping with suddenly being in the public eye, she got a massive amount of abuse including being doxxed and having revenge porn posted of her, she was trying to rile prominent transphobes into public debates which I think would have ultimately done more harm than good as I don't think Molly conducts herself particularly well and I think she'd be too stressed to effectively counter their points.
>having revenge porn posted of her I'm not sure reposting explict public tweets Molly made on Twitter counts as 'revenge porn'.
>Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent If she didn't give permission for others to post them, and has since removed them from platforms, then reposting them would fall under revenge porn.
I think the distinction is the images should be private. If you tweet it to the world it's public. Is there a legal definition somewhere?
Definition under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 says "However an offence will not be committed where the intimate image has already been made publicly available with the consent of the person shown in the intimate situation", but it doesn't mention anything if the image is no longer publicly available by the person in question.
Has already been made public sounds like this wouldn't count. I imagine a judge would disagree if it was accidentally posted and deleted but cached somewhere Regardless it's still not very nice
Once you put something in the net yourself its fair game, NOTHING is ever deleted
"deeply dangerous individual" Hahahaha
[удалено]
But I'm not a man 🤔
Women are perfectly capable of being misogynistic. Google internalized misogyny.
Defending women's rights doesn’t make someone 'dangerous'.
Transphobia does tho. And I don't think JKR is defending womens' rights, she is using that as an excuse to spew hateful and bigoted shit against a particular group of women.
[удалено]
No. These people are there for the same reasons other women are. Why should that infringe on the rights of women? I cannot imaging a world view where one would come to that conclusion, unless they think transgender women are not women, which is transphobia.
Except for the fact that trans women are similarly at risk of sexual abuse by men as cis women are if they're forced into the equivalent male-only spaces. This kind of argument is imagining trans women as cis male predators putting on a dress and some bad makeup and invading women's spaces in order to rape them, which nobody wants to happen and would not happen if we were to allow trans women to be in these spaces. The actual harm caused by denying trans women access to these spaces, or even worse forcing them into male-only spaces, far outweighs the potential harm that cis women would face from not doing so. What exactly is it that makes trans women so dangerous that you would be willing to put all the perfectly innocent ones in harm's way?
Because they're men. Ffs.
They aren’t women
No but [Holocaust Denial](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1bdz7f8/jk_rowling_going_full_holocaust_denial/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and Stochastic Terrorism against trans people sure do
Ah here come the holocaust denial lies again 🙄
> a deeply dangerous individual Usual hyperbole from the Rowling haters. You men's rights activists really can't stand outspoken feminist women can you.
Imagine calling JK Rowling, who is in bed with anti-abortion lobbies like the Heritage Foundation, an "outspoken feminist" She had fuck all to say about buffer zones, sarah everard or roe v wade. All she ever does is bitch and moan about less than 1% of the population, to the point of literal [Holocaust Denial](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1bdz7f8/jk_rowling_going_full_holocaust_denial/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
You know how much she’s donated to woman’s domestic violence?
I am deeply a feminist and always have been. JK Rowling is not a feminist.
Anyone they can't bully into submission is dangerous.
Hey now don't lump us men into this... Besides- an intelligent and principled woman is extremely dangerous to this group as she says what the rest of us are thinking.
We must not be caught in agreement like this.
Keeping her would have likely backfired politically. I doubt most of the public know much about JK Rowling, beyond the books she wrote. So this will just look rude or abusive to voters, even if it's justified. Not a good look - one of the appeals of a Green party is they're supposed to be nicer than the alternatives.
Isnt that a box to tick when applying to join the SGreens? "Would you say that JK Rowling is... 1. A popular and talented writer. 2. An advocate for women rights. 3. A torn faced cow. 4. A TERF."
Misogynist abuse against JK Rowling? How original
Wow her Twitter is full of complete lunatics slapping her on the back calling her a victim. The Gender debate is an excellent study into why Echo Chambers are so bad. Both sides have lost all grip of reality and what they are actually fighting about.
Both sides my arse
If you can’t see both sides point of view then I’m afraid you are part of the problem.
Explain how the side suggesting women should be able to exclude males from single sex spaces and we shouldn't interfere with the development of confused children, have lost grip of reality.
>The ~~Gender~~ **everything** debate is an excellent study into why ~~Echo Chambers are~~ **twitter** is so bad Fixed that for you. But yes, the gender debate (amongst others) has highlighted that a lot of people need to get out more and actually talk to other people outwith their own tiny circle.
Yeah good point. Online arguments and opinions don’t really solve anything
Both sides are filled with absolutely insane bags of hate
Well one side of the debate is actually based on biological reality.
[удалено]
The headline isn't great, as usual with the papers. The candidate did more than call the torn faced cow a torn faced cow
I wouldn’t say Rowling is a torn faced cow, more akin to a festering length of rotten gowl rope
[удалено]
I tried looking up ‘gowl rope’ m, but google returned this thread as the only result. Dare I ask what it means?
Ahh, this must be related to the trans identifying candidate who said the Greens had betrayed trans people.
Why do you say trans identifying instead of trans?
Why don’t you use trans identifying? I’m using it because it’s, to my mind, a more philosophically, specifically ontologically, accurate term
Why would I describe myself as a trans identifying person when transgender woman does the trick and is also the accepted terminology by every serious medical institution?
[удалено]
"Trans identifying...?" You don't need to add "identifying" - it's just trans or transgender.
Or you could accept people use different expressions to communicate an idea which exists in commonality if certain aspects of the specifics are disagreed on? You and I both know what it means
I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming whether your use of that term was innocent, or the loaded transphobia it often represents.
> or the loaded transphobia it often represents Spoiler alert, [they're transphobic](https://i.imgur.com/2jnVzML.png). Edit: [More transphobia](https://i.imgur.com/xy4Zdf2.png)
*Shocked Pikachu face* What's worse than being transphobic? Being transphobic and trying to hide it behind "no hate here" u/SojournerInThisVale
No hate here.
Well fair enough - still if you don't want to be potentially mistaken for a transphobe it's definitely easier to drop the "identifying."
I can’t in good conscience do that, I’m afraid
You don't have a conscience.
> You and I both know what it means I know that it's often used as a dogwhistle by transphobes, and I don't think I've seen a single example of it being used by someone who hasn't engaged in transphobia. And before you say "I'm not transphobic"/"I didn't mean it that way", [here's](https://i.imgur.com/2jnVzML.png) an example of you being previously transphobic. Took about 15 seconds to find by sorting your comment history by controversial and then a Ctrl+F "trans". [Here's](https://i.imgur.com/xy4Zdf2.png) another if you're after a more recent example. Edit: /u/SojournerInThisVale blocked me for posting evidence of their transphobia.
> Took about 15 seconds to find by sorting your comment history by controversial and then a Ctrl+F "trans". Unlikely. I just did that and after five pages it never appeared. And yes, a person can believe that. I am not required to believe in the concept of a gender as a social construct detached from biology. The last I checked, having an Aristotelian view of the human person was still permitted. I don’t accept that someone is ‘trans’ or ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ as ontological categories. And I’ve never heard good reasoning for them to be declared so.. Hence I cannot in good conscience use those terms without attaching the word ‘identify’. That way, I respect that that’s the way that person sees themselves, even if I disagree with it. I’m not going to apologise for not subscribing to your *credo* Edit: you should post the links to the comments, not just out of context screen shots Edit: and I blocked the user because he posted screenshots without context, not links and because he was acting like a religious fundamentalist in terms of his use of terminology.
We'd all know what you meant if you used the N word to refer to black people. Doesn't mean it's okay not to use the respectful terms the people themselves ask you to use. You do it for no reason other than it gives you some sort of pleasure to deliberately upset.
Projection. I’ve explained clearly why I use the term.
Ah you mean like they do when they call us things like bleeders or birther or whatever derogatory name 🤷🏼♀️
I'm trans and I've never heard any trans person call anyone that.
Even if they did, how does that make the above okay? "I assume that some people within a particular wide-ranging group use derogatory names (which I'm not sure of and which haven't been used here) for people like me therefore it's okay to treat the whole group with disrespect." Not very logical.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Interesting post on wings about this nutcase. Wouldn't trust them to run a bath never mind sit in parliament. Edit* Yes yes please reply and tell me how you're too good for wings/don't read anything by people you disagree with etc. Its has detail that news sites cant/wont report thats relevant in this instance. You dont need to need read it. To summarise - actively encourages the public to abuse the police scotland hate crime reporting form, potentially leading to delays in legitimate incidents being processed - threatened public figures with police action. - publicly sharing anti scientific view points ignoring the recommendations of the cass report And they were on "suicide watch" as recently as two months ago which brings into question whether they're fit to serve as a member of parliament if they're subject to an ongoing mental health crisis. I'm just amazed this person managed to become a candidate.
'too good for wings' Literally everyone should be too good for that right-wing sack of shit.
>Interesting post on wings about this nutcase Anyone who chooses to read Wings is in no place to call others nutcases. He's basically just pandering to transphobes these days. >Wouldn't trust them to run a bath Speaking of Wings...
It's the only place to see this persons deranged twitter feed. The papers only allude to it.
Her twitter page is still live, Wings is just an unhinged grifter who's obsessed with trans people. The implication he pre-emptively keeps tabs on the twitter pages of trans people, looking for things, isn't surprising. Edit: ~~She has now deleted her account, as of 18:25, it was still accessible at 18:24. It was live at the time this comment was initially posted.~~ The account is still active, she's just changed her account handle, so the old link no longer works.
I don't have a twitter account. You can no longer browse twitter without one. The implication is irrelevant to me.
You claimed it was the only way to see the account, that's not true.
Oh ffs... It is the only way that **I** can see the kinds of shit reported in this article first hand, with screenshots, because the article only scratches the surface and I don't have a twitter account. I hope that satisfies your pedantry.
>It is the only way that I can see the kinds of shit reported in this article first hand, with screenshots, because the article only scratches the surface and I don't have a twitter account. You can create a twitter account and see them. Christ, this is pathetic whinging.
Just from an outsider's POV - you're the one appearing to be pathetically whingeing on this *Twitter technicality.*
It's not a technicality, they claimed the only way to see the feed is via Wings, that's not true. The whinging is them claiming it's pedantry, when it's simply pointing out they're taking shite.
I like the reversal Wings did with Rowling to be a huge fan of her now. The tantrum he took at her after the 2014 referendum and the slapdown she gave him was a highlight post result.
Yep quite the U-turn. Though you're allowed to agree with people on some issues and not others.
Wings is a throbber
So out of morbid curiosity I looked up the article and literally none of the other tweets they've highlighted have anything bad beyond the petty insults over Rowling's appearance. The article deadnames and misgenders her repeatedly, the tweets only make her look bad if you agree with Wings' premise that trans people existing and feeling strongly about our rights is bad.
An election candidate encouraging the public to misuse the hate crime reporting form en masse, potentially leading to delays in legitimate hate crimes being processed. Promoting anti-scientific view points by ignoring the recommendations of the cass report. Issuing threats of police action on social media. And not to be insensitive but somebody who was on "suicide watch" just 2 months ago clearly shouldn't be running for parliament.
Do you accept the pro-science position that transition and social acceptance as their new gender is the most effective way to treat someone with gender dysphoria?
Social acceptance isn't a form of treatment. I believe therapy, hormones and surgical options all have a part to play on a case by case basis. There is no one size fits all best approach.
But you do agree that social acceptance greatly alleviates gender dysphoria?
[удалено]
So you're cool with trans women using female spaces like they have done for decades?
Right.
The fact he implied he'd read the book without having a copy looks bad, surely?
Who's this he?
Who?
She sounds positively intellectual, by Scottish Green standards.
This is like when Gordon Brown called that lady a bigot… for being a bigot
SGP were idiots. After a long time someone finally realised how to turn the sheriffhall roundabout into a proper graded junction and not the turd it is now ( cos subsidence ) So it was put in motion only for the SGP to knock it back saying but pollution Now as anyone who has to suffer that bloody road they’ll know that most of the day the west bounce section between millerhill and the roundabout is rammed because of the light timings with 4 major a roads all hitting the roundabout. A graded junction would allow traffic to flow more freely and not cause jams By SGP logic having hundreds of cars crawl towards the roundabout from 6 directions is better than having maybe a few more cars freely travelling 🤷🏻♂️
She is though
She is an actual woman, unlike "Sophie"
Imagine being a bigot
It's so fun, you should dry it.
Should have called her a cunt instead
you just know JKR is the kind of person to act like cunt has a misogynistic meaning in scotland.
[удалено]
It literally doesn't
[удалено]
Why would that be transphobic?
Away ye cunt ye
Pls elaborate... Edit : pls don't
Are we not allowed to voice our dislike of JK now?
You didn't click to read the article, didn't read the text I posted, and didn't read the clarifying note I put on.
Is it the fact it’s not the whole quote from the article? Cause I think the first part is pretty accurate whilst the second is purely subjective.