Marisa retweeted
I didn’t really get the problem with gender ideology at first.
I’m liberal-minded about most things. ‘Live and let live’ has generally been my motto. I believed in inclusion, kindness and not causing unnecessary offence.
I knew some adults chose medical treatments or surgery to resemble the opposite sex. That seemed to me a matter of personal autonomy. Adults can do what they wish with their own bodies.
What I hadn’t realised — and I feel slightly embarrassed admitting this — was that I’d misunderstood what was being claimed.
I thought “transgender” meant a form of self-expression. A man who liked wearing women’s clothes. Someone changing their name. Gender non-conformity.
What I hadn’t grasped was that some activists weren’t just asking for tolerance. They were asserting that declaring yourself the opposite sex made you the opposite sex. Not metaphorically. Literally.
And that this wasn’t just cultural. It had legal consequences.
It meant men who said they were women were demanding access to women’s sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters and hospital wards.
It meant the rewriting of healthcare language — “pregnant people”, “bodies with cervixes” — to avoid saying “women”.
It meant children struggling with identity being affirmed onto medical pathways with lifelong implications.
And also redefining same-sex attraction. Lesbians called ‘bigoted’ for not wanting relationships with men who identify as women. Gay men accused of prejudice for saying they’re not attracted to female bodies.
I’d also overlooked how deeply this had spread into public institutions, schools and workplaces.
And how easily disagreement was framed as cruelty. Speaking up felt risky — because others were being publicly humiliated for doing so.
None of this is abstract.
Because sex is the basis on which safeguarding works. On which data is collected. On which cancer screening programmes run. On which fair sport and single-sex spaces depend. It’s written into law — including the Equality Act — because material differences matter.
If sex becomes a ‘feeling’ rather than a biological category, those protections become unstable.
And once reality becomes negotiable, everything does.
Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it.
But I needed to be sure.
So I read. Books, research papers, policy documents. When I finally spoke publicly, there was backlash from all directions.
Many women thanked me, while some feminists criticised me for speaking too late.
Others were angry about a past interview I’d done with the parent of a transgender person, accusing me of promoting harm.
It takes courage to speak when you know your reputation, friendships or livelihood may be on the line — when you know raising your voice could strain, or even end, relationships you value.
Once I understood what was at stake, staying silent was no longer an option.
I lost my livelihood simply for saying I didn’t like the phrase “pregnant people”. That alone tells you something is deeply wrong.
It shouldn’t be this way.
I don’t expect praise for admitting it took me far too long to understand what was happening. Or to say so publicly.
I can only be honest about what I believed then and what I understand now.
But it does take courage to admit publicly that you got something wrong. All I hope is that by acknowledging I wasn’t paying enough attention, another woman (or man) might feel emboldened to do the same.
Because, as many of us know first-hand, there can be professional, social and financial consequences to speaking out.
And I won’t pretend I understood something before I did, simply to make myself more acceptable to those who got there sooner.
Which is why I will never judge another woman for how long it takes her to find her voice.
Because every voice matters. Whenever it is raised.
Marisa retweeted
...my sofa but the one things he is, is a good caretaker first minister and stabilising force when it comes to one of the most turbulent times in recent economic history. On that basis I give him a break. Might sound like a backhanded compliment (and it is) but the point stands..
Marisa retweeted
I don't particularly like John Swinney as a politician. What I will give him his dues on is that when it comes to running the Scottish budget and mitigating the damage Westminster causes, he's bloody good with the numbers. It's his wheelhouse. He might be more Biege than...
Marisa retweeted
These are the means of livelihood for families, so if they're destroyed, the families will find it difficult or impossible to survive. But it's not a genocidal act. Apparently. Ahem.
Marisa retweeted
When Scotland decided to roll out free care services, it did so from Scotland's fixed, devolved budget.
When England decides to roll out free care services, in England only, it does so by reducing the future pensions of all nations.
Pooling and sharing only ever goes one way...
Marisa retweeted
Yesterday it was Lisa Nandy telling us that the Brexit vote was never intended to be a settled question. Tonight we have PM telling us reopening the Q is justified because it’s been 10 years & opinions & circumstances have changed. 🤔 Do they hear themselves?
Marisa retweeted
‘Seismic’ Andy Burnham proposals are quite familiar for Scots. Right to buy abolished here 2016, free personal care 2001, comprehensives never axed, 62% Remain vote, water never privatised, PR standard. So what do Scots make of the PM’s big speech? Listen LesleyRiddoch.com/podcast
Marisa retweeted
In Scotland personal care has been free for 24 years. It has not impacted the state pension but taxes are a little higher here for the better paid. Now, Westminster will restrict pension growth in Scotland to help pay for personal care in England.
You Yes yet?
@theSNP
Marisa retweeted
Free personal care was delivered by First Minister Henry McLeish despite massive opposition within his own Labour cabinet and huge hostility from Blair’s Cabinet; who withdraw Attendance Allowance as their revenge for defying their orders not to introduce free care in Scotland
Marisa retweeted
The SNP Govt made the choice of providing free Social Care to those who need it and properly fund it out of their budget. Scottish pensioners are now seeing the triple lock on their pensions taken away to provide free Social Care in England...seems fair enough...doesn't it.....?
Marisa retweeted
Replying to @JoaniReid
Housing right to buy - Scotland already stopped.
Water already in public ownership
Training company ScotRail already in public ownership
Social care already in place in Scotland.
Could it be Labour need the SNP to show them what to do?
Marisa retweeted
Replying to @JoaniReid
He’s reducing the pension increases (reserved matter), funding social care (we already do), nationalise water company (our has always been nationalised). What’s Burnham doing that’s so much better than Swinney ?
Marisa retweeted
Very disingenuous to suggest John Swinney said this in the circumstances it is being presented.
John Swinney was not aware of the passing of his father when he made the statement. No one knew.
Marisa retweeted
Replying to @ginadavidsonlbc
Nonsense. He’s promising England everything Scotland already has in place.
His comment about John Swinney was beneath contempt. Guessing he lost a lot of Scotland with that performance.
Marisa retweeted
In Scotland, we provide free personal care for older people without punishing pensioners. Andy Burnham removing the triple lock would simply repeat the mistakes of Keir Starmer.
The blame for the UK’s financial mess lies with successive Westminster governments, not pensioners.
Marisa retweeted
Michael Marra and Douglas Alexander were apparently both crying, cheering and punching the air when Andy Burnham used the death of his father to stir up emotion when defending the Union. This sounds truly nauseating. We don't think we've ever heard anything like this before.
Marisa retweeted
This was pretty unnecessary by Burnham and I think most decent folk realise that. Explaining that the First Minister didn’t know and then trying to infer he was in some way out of order was a bit Laboured.
Substitute “men who believe they are women” to “gender critical” and see how this read.
Would have replied directly to the post, but not everyone is allowed to. Why?


























