[–] Medusa 1 points (+1|-0)

At the subsequent trial, in March 2020, he said that some allegations were “deliberate fabrications for a political purpose,” while his lawyer conceded that Salmond could have been “a better man on occasions.” The jury cleared him on all 13 charges involving nine women.

Nine women. Nine. Nice to see a woman's word is worth less than 1/9 of a man's.

Many regard the questioning of Sturgeon’s knowledge, or even complicity, as sexist: a woman being held accountable for a man’s behavior.

She's not responsible for his behavior, but she is responsible for hers. She's a public official supporting a creep, and the flak she catches for that is all hers.

One former SNP activist, Teddy Hope, described being verbally abused at political meetings where “photocopies of men taken from the internet were passed with the comments that they had all been convicted of predatory and paedophilic behaviour against women and girls while self-identifying as women.”

My heart bleeds for him, it must be so hard to be a man in the middle of a men's rights movement and have those pesky women speaking up. Oh look, what a surprise, he's nonbinary and behaves in exactly the way you'd expect.

Take the recent Scottish Hate Crime Bill, which is—by American standards—extraordinarily illiberal. In its proposed form, Scots could be prosecuted for “stirring up hatred,” even if they had not intended to do so, and libraries and bookshops could be prosecuted for loaning or selling “inflammatory material.” Even speech within a private home could be subject to criminal sanctions.

I think I'm as speechless as Scottish women right now.

In March, Mary Gordon, a great-niece of the SNP’s founder, chalked a message on a government building in Edinburgh: “Women’s rights are not a hate crime.” Soon after, two uniformed police officers visited her house to warn her that she could be arrested for breach of the peace if she repeated the protest.

This is so dystopian. Imagine someone telling you this would happen 10 years ago.

Sturgeon was unmoved. In January, she warned that discussions of women’s issues had become “a cover for transphobia,” adding: “I am a life-long feminist … But as a woman I know the threat to my safety is from abusive men; it is not from trans women.”

Trans women and abusive men are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we have a mountain of receipts on this very site proving the frequent overlap.

The charge against gender-critical feminism is that it is fundamentally reactionary, an attempt to enforce old-fashioned ideas of what a woman or a man is.

That's funny, I don't recall us saying that sexist stereotypes define womanhood. That's the trans movement's stance. It would be nice if they would engage honestly, rather than continually saying "No, you!"

It was considered radical when McAlpine invited grassroots feminist groups and gender-critical academics to give evidence about recording sex data in the census—instead of relying solely on charities such as Engender, which receives £275,000 of its yearly £355,000 income from the government. She had broken the hall of mirrors.

We're seeing this in the USA and Canada, too - the organizations that have a vested interest are being treated like impartial experts, while the grassroots are pooh-poohed as baseless reactionaries.

Overall I think this was a very good article, although the author had to reach to find criticisms of the gender critical side in order to not seem biased. That's awfully telling, isn't it? When you view the facts and the context surrounding this debate, only one side is engaging critically and honestly, and only one side is aligned with biological and material reality. Gender ideology is a house of cards, and it's adherents need absolute compliance to maintain the ruse.