J.K. Rowling has led a feminist backlash against Nicola Sturgeon after she was accused of “rewriting history” over the gender self-ID law controversy by claiming there was no public opposition until “forces muscled in”. The Telegraph has more.
The Harry Potter author said the former Scottish First Minister was attempting to invent a “worthy adversary” to blame for the public opposition her gender Bill provoked.
Instead, Ms. Sturgeon was refusing to accept the backlash had been driven by normal women who were outraged over her plans, Rowling said.
It followed a series of Scottish women’s groups signing a joint letter urging Ms. Sturgeon to name the “forces” she recently claimed had “muscled in” on the trans debate in Scotland as part of an agenda to “push back rights generally”.
In a round of media interviews, she raised eyebrows by claiming there was no “massive public opposition” to her law until it passed. At the time it was seen as one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Holyrood’s history and it provoked an unprecedented SNP rebellion.
Ms Sturgeon’s self-ID law would have allowed any Scot aged 16 and over to change their legal sex simply by signing a declaration, but it was later blocked by the U.K. Government meaning it never came into force.
Responding to the letter calling on Ms. Sturgeon to name the “forces” she was referring to, Rowling said: “Her ego requires her signature Bill to have been opposed by something she considers a worthy adversary, rather than members of the public who don’t want cross-dressing men running rape crisis centres.”
She suggested that someone buy Ms. Sturgeon the book The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht for Christmas, a series of essays about the grassroots opposition to the self-ID law, which Rowling contributed to.
The letter to Ms. Sturgeon was signed by seven feminist groups including For Women Scotland, which is awaiting a ruling from Supreme Court judges about the legal impact of gender recognition certificates (GRCs), which the self-ID law would have made widely available to Scots.
In the legal case, Scottish Government lawyers undermined assurances Ms. Sturgeon and other SNP ministers gave while their Bill was being scrutinised at Holyrood.
They accepted GRCs change a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act and bestow significant new rights on those who hold them, whereas previously the law had been presented as bringing about a minor bureaucratic change.
The letter to Ms Sturgeon urged her to “move away from dropping broad hints” and to present evidence to back up her claims.
“If you believe that there are groups or individuals with an agenda to ‘push back rights generally’ who are ‘muscling in’ on Scottish politics, you have a duty to state who or what you believe they are, and how you believe they are operating in Scotland, as precisely as possible,” it said.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“demand employers offer IVF”
Fake news headline to get people worked-up about Gen Z. It’s clear from the article content that it’s about what might attract employees, not what they demand.
“family benefits are important or very important for retaining employees”. Is that any different from recent generations?
I tend to agree. I’d love it if my employer could afford to offer private healthcare so I wouldn’t need to use the NHS, but we looked into it and it’s pretty expensive unless your workforce is predominantly young – and of course there’s no opt-out from paying for the NHS so it’s double bubble.
“A survey from family health company Maven Clinic revealed an ever-increasing list of demands including…….”
A marketing punt by Maven as predictive programming to soften up the employers and encourage the employees by normalising this. I am no longer an employer – glad I don’t have to deal with this nonsense. Most people are reasonable and appreciate some leeway when they need it. Support of co-workers through the absence of someone in need is the key – the business has to function and its co-workers who take up the slack.
Why would any company wish to provide a benefit that would encourage staff absences such as IVF treatments?
Load of boll ox.
I’m OK with providing benefits that make good workers want to stay with the firm and where flexibility from the employer is repaid in kind by the staff. That has generally been the case where I work, but we may be exceptional. I think there’s an issue with providing a benefit that not everyone can take advantage of equally though so I prefer to give people flexibility when they need it and pay people a decent wage which they can decide to spend on whatever is best for them.
I thought the same. A survey from family health company … looks awfully like this family health company seeking to market its own products.
The employer can always refuse.
Too many covid
? Can’t get pregnant?
This is a completely unscientific observation but all of my duly multi-perforated relatives seem to have a much harder time with whatever the next ‘variant’ happens to be than I do. They’re still getting really sick because of it in periodic intervals while this has meanwhile developed to being (sometimes very annoying) nuisance for me.
Adam Smith pointed out that all wages are the same.
You either get your IVF, but less money in your pay packet, and reduced holiday entitlement, or no IVF and more pay and holidays. You choose.
In the high tax1960s/70s (thanks to Labour then and coming back again thanks to Labour) company cars became popular, as at the time they were not a taxable benefit.
Employees accepted lower wages plus car because overall it worked out better for them. Similarly, days off in lieu of payment for working overtime, or in teased holiday entitlement instead of pay increase were popular as this could not be taxed.