Dear @theSNP,

If
you are serious about tackling transphobia within your party, perhaps you should begin by talking to actual trans people, and the organisations who represent them.

Your own NEC is really not the place to start, it's part of the problem.

I mean your Conduct Committee is a joke. Here is a small sample of tweets from Neale Hanvey's campaign guy. This is what is going on in the name of the SNP.

https://t.co/RRuwNAAeUB
Hanvey appears to have deleted his own tweets equating trans people with paedophiles, but the damage is already done.
You will never regain trust, members, or member subs, until you tackle this effectively.
Hanvey deleted his tweet, but here's a quote of the tweet, where he conflated paedophilia with GRA reform, and perpetuates the far-right conspiracy theory about paedophiles "adding letters" to the LGBTQ+ grouping.
I would suggest the SNP, and indeed wider Scottish society (especially columnists and magazine editors), pay a LOT more attention to far-right conspiracies, because they are polluting our lives, and are now polluting the way laws are written and passed in Holyrood.
Transphobia is demonstrably a far-right conspiracy theory.

https://t.co/PZ6mZk91Xl

https://t.co/1fMsBCb3K6
The fact so many transphobes, who like to gaslight and claim they are trans allies, are on the NEC is an indication that transphobia is systemic within the SNP.

If they are involved in writing definitions of transphobia, the SNP will never fix the problem, just perpetuate it.
Listen to trans people, because you simply cannot define oppression if you are erasing the experience of the people who are experiencing oppression, and allowing those oppressing them to wield power.

Which is what is happening right now.
So @theSNP, the big question is IF you are serious about tackling transphobia.

Or whether you think oor heids zip up the back, and a bit of window dressing will convince us.

The transphobia within the Hate Crimes Bill needs to be removed.

@NicolaSturgeon @HumzaYousaf

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like