Scotland finds way to independence

Alexander Khabarov

In the Middle Ages, and even later, issues of war and peace, the annexation of territories or, conversely, the division of land were often resolved through dynastic marriages and subsequent childbearing. Far from always, those who entered into a family union reciprocated, but relations between the sexes were sacrificed to politics. Modern leaders have moved to a new gender level in solving issues of state building. The authorities of Scotland, not having the legal opportunity to secede from the United Kingd-om, decided to secede from the hateful England by passing their law on gender reassignment.
The strategic decision w-as given to the Scottish parliamentarians with great difficulty. Opponents of the bill desperately tried to stop him. I had to vote for each item, and the discussion dragged on for two days. A disgruntled crowd buzzed at the walls of Parliament. Feminist activists seeped i-nto the ranks of the audience. One of them, in the b-est traditions of British suffragettes, bared her lower body with the words: “If you want to be decent, then I will be obscene.” The law was adopted by a majority of votes: 86 against 39.
The key points of the Scottish “gender revolution” were the permission to change sex at 16 without a medical examination and the reduction of the period of “stay in a new gender identity” from two years to three months. All this is contrary to the laws in force in the rest of the United Kingdom: in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Thus, Edinburgh threw down the gauntlet to London, offering to participate in another political duel.
Not daring to encroach on the rights of transgender people – in the West it is now suicidal – the London publications began to repel the insidious attack of the Scots using the arguments and means available to them. Critics of the new law assure everyone that those accused of sexual offenses will now declare themselves to be transgender en masse. As a result, male rapists will have to be treated as women in courts, prisoners will be required to be transferred from male to female prisons, and “transgender” tourism awaits Scotland.
Edinburgh’s gender escalation is a purely political matter, and the British government will have to respond anyway. Sunak’s cabinet would like to block the Scottish Bill, preventing King Charles III from signing it. But gender iss-ues are within the purview of the Scottish Parliament, so lawyers in London are now trying to urgently find contradictions with other laws of the kingdom. Edin-burgh promises to closely monitor that London does not violate the constitutional rights of the Scots.
The leader of the opposition Labor Party, Cyrus Starmer, called for a law identical to that of Scotland to be in place throughout the UK. The idea was favored in the European Union – Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic welcomed the decision of the Scottish parliamentarians, adding that nine of the 27 EU countries have already approved similar bills. Among the distinguished congress of Spain, which approved the right of children to freely change sex from the age of 16. From 14 to 16, parental consent is required, from 12 to 14, court approval is required. Before the age of 12, gender change is prohibited, but such children may change their name and require that they be addressed in accordance with their choice.
However, Spanish activists believe that this is not enough: they intend to seek the removal of any age restrictions. And few people in Europe today risk arguing with such “progressive” ideas. The Spanish law on transgender people has a separate system of punishments for violations of it. For example, for refusing to hire or provide housing for rent to transgender people, as well as adherents of non-traditional sexual orientation, the violator faces a fine of ten to 150 thousand euros.
It is not easy for opponents of the transgender offensive to voice their thoughts today. For a timid attempt to defend the preservation of “at least something feminine” in Britain, the writer J.K. Rowling was pecked, even screen “children” disowned her – actors who gained fame thanks to their roles in the Harry Potter films. Journalist Hadley Freeman was forced to resign from the Guardian newspaper, where she worked for almost a quarter of a century. She claims that she was banned from publishing materials that cast a shadow on LGBT organizations: “I never had problems publishing interviews of activists defending the rights of transgender people, but it was forbidden to present the opposite point of view.”
The journalist was banned from covering the scandal surrounding the charitable organization Mermaids (“The Little Mermaids”), “supporting transgender, non-binary and other children with gender changes.” It turned out that one of the trustees of this fund, a visiting professor at the London School of Economics Jacob Brislow, was associated with an organization that seeks “truth and dignity” for pedophiles. “The Little Mermaids” sent underage girls who thought about changing their sex elastic bandages to squeeze their breasts. The foundation’s website published material on how sex blockers are safe drugs, and gave advice to children aged 12 to 15 on how to get funds for hormone therapy. The commission for charitable organizations became interested in the activities of the Little Mermaids.
In the course of “inclusiveness” – the acceptance of everything, no matter how terrible it all seems. The UK’s National Health System is now complaining about a lack of funds and at the same time is ready to spend £100,000 on a program to train maternity staff to take care of transgender male women in labor. Midwives are invited to change their usual vocabulary: instead of “breastfeeding” they should say “giving milk”, avoiding the words “woman” and “mother”, replacing them with “people in labor”.
From political salons and hospital wards, the slippery topic reached the Anglican Church. During a Sunday service at Trinity College Chapel, Cambridge University, visiting scholar Joshua Heath presented the flock with several medieval and Renaissance paintings of the crucifixion of Christ. The researcher drew the audience’s attention to the side wound on the body of Jesus in the painting by the Dutch artist Jean Maluel and suggested that it was deliberately isolated “to look like a vagina.” Joshua Heath gave a few more arguments confirming his version, using other canvases, and concluded his speech with the words: “In these works, the body of Christ is presented both as a male and as a female, and if his body unites both sexes, then it can also be considered transgender body. The parishioners were shocked. According to eyewitnesses, after such a sermon, cries of “Heresy!” were heard in the chapel, someone left in tears. The scandalous story did not end there. Trinity College Dean Michael Banner stated that the claim thatJesus Christ could be transgender, has the right to life: “I believe that the reasoning on this topic is quite reasonable, even if someone does not agree with such an interpretation of artistic images and with an attempt to connect with modern issues of transsexuality.”
The breadth of views of the scientific community in Britain is well known. The problem is that politicians use these dashing thoughts with might and main, dressing them in laws, which then need to be followed by everyone else, regardless of whether they share or not the proposed innovations. Scottish parliamentarians can feel as much as they want that by passing their “transgender” law, they have shown everyone their independence. In fact, they simply seized the initiative from the British, moreover, temporarily. So it does not make sense for the Scots to draw a gender line – they have no one to separate from.