Best Of

Well done Kyf. A couple of posts from then heart. Worth all of the anodyne rubbish put together. I would like to try to answer your first question but I have no answer. Some people like the subject and want to be prescriptive is the best I can do. I hope you weren't too offended.

Aww, thanks. I met the then to be Mrs. Kyf long before I ever posted on PB, and it never occurred to me that her existence might one day be a debated topic here. Theresa May as PM advocated self-ID. Anne Widdecombe, of all people, has written in GB news, of all places, that trans women should be treated as women.

Hence: I don't think it's a left/right issue - it's one of common decency. Regrettably, it's both fascinating and noteworthy that the people whose views on the topic (e.g. barty favouring carpet bombing the middle east) seem to treat others as subhuman as well.

Instructive as always: https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/

I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.

I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?

Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.

I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.

It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.

I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.

You know, I think you've inspired me to write a PB header on the topic.

Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.

Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.

I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.

It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.

Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.

Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.

The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.

That's not quite true: there are plenty of people (0.2-0.3%) who have things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and the like.

It also raises an interesting question: how would you feel if you found out that there was a genetic sequence that people who identified as trans typically had, and those who did not, didn't?

If the evidence changed then I would change my stance. In the event of it being supported by biology then society should make reasonable adjustments to support that in the same way a disability would be (excuse the comparison but it seems most apt). However, no such evidence has been found.

I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.

I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?

Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.

I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.

It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.

I occasionally pipe up, if only to remind people that polling continues to show significantly more support for trans people by females than by males, and that public opinion on the issue is far more nuanced and less ideological than social media would imply.

But it’s a toxic debate, as are all debates about identity and competing rights.

Furthermore, I suspect that there's a bit of a category confusion here.

Law and politics are pretty good at regulating questions of "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not". They are much less able to regulate "thou art" questions like this. There's no trans-friendly law that can, or should, stop gender criticals criticising the idea of gender. And there's no trans-unfriendly law that can stop trans people having the self-understanding they have of who they are. And somewhere in the space between those two points is where we all have to live together.

Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward

Sensible to dial down the rhetoric

He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support'
Our humiliation is almost complere

Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.

20 minute phone call with Starmer who expressed sympathy for US loses

Will speak again apparently

Ed Davey calls for Charles visit to US to be cancelled

Fair from Starmer. Also fair from Davey.

I wonder if some nasty s**tstirring tw@t has been poisoning the well over dinner at Mar a Lago?

I do not think Charles should go, as he will be exposed to the US media asking him what he knew of AMW and the Epstein scandal

It will or would dominate US airways with the Democrats demanding AMW testifies in US

It will or would be very embarrassing

Does the King do question-and-answer sessions at press conferences? Can't say I recall any.

I agree.

It would be an absolute minefield.

In front of and behind the camera.

In public and in private

I also don't think anyone is safe in America right now. Too many utter nutters, too many guns.

God forbid anything happened and Trump sought to blame the UK Government for not bending over backwards and it was some sort of reciprocal message.

He is beyond crazy enough to pull any stunt.

Furthermore I think British Royalty should avoid the World Cup.

I think they would be wise to avoid the US altogther along with many others

We have been there many times but even if we could travel, not anymore

Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward

Sensible to dial down the rhetoric

He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support'
Our humiliation is almost complere

Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.

20 minute phone call with Starmer who expressed sympathy for US loses

Will speak again apparently

Ed Davey calls for Charles visit to US to be cancelled

Fair from Starmer. Also fair from Davey.

I wonder if some nasty s**tstirring tw@t has been poisoning the well over dinner at Mar a Lago?

I do not think Charles should go, as he will be exposed to the US media asking him what he knew of AMW and the Epstein scandal

It will or would dominate US airways with the Democrats demanding AMW testifies in US

It will or would be very embarrassing

Does the King do question-and-answer sessions at press conferences? Can't say I recall any.

I agree.

It would be an absolute minefield.

In front of and behind the camera.

In public and in private

I also don't think anyone is safe in America right now. Too many utter nutters, too many guns.

God forbid anything happened and Trump sought to blame the UK Government for not bending over backwards and it was some sort of reciprocal message.

He is beyond crazy enough to pull any stunt.

Furthermore I think British Royalty should avoid the World Cup.