Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Punters split almost 50-50 on an early BJ exit – politicalbetting.com

2456710

Comments

  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,143

    slade said:

    As well as OB and S there are 10 local by-elections today. Conservatives are on the defensive in 6 - Adur, Breckland, Highland, Lancaster (x2), and Wealden; in Worthing there is an Ind elected as Con defence. There is a Labour defence in Newport, a Lib Dem defence in North Norfolk, and a Residents defence in Warwick.

    Andrew Teale's analysis of today's by-elections. https://www.britainelects.com/2021/12/02/previewing-the-super-thursday-by-elections-of-02-dec-2021/

    As usual it is very detailed.
    They are as always tours de force of regional geography. Should be a module on the A level curriculum.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    edited December 2021

    Carnyx said:

    slade said:

    As well as OB and S there are 10 local by-elections today. Conservatives are on the defensive in 6 - Adur, Breckland, Highland, Lancaster (x2), and Wealden; in Worthing there is an Ind elected as Con defence. There is a Labour defence in Newport, a Lib Dem defence in North Norfolk, and a Residents defence in Warwick.

    Hmm, in the 2017 election the deceased Tory gentleman in Highland was elected third out of four elected for one of those Scottish multimember constituencies. Normally as by elections are FPTP you compare them with the first to be elected in the general election, not who actually is being replaced.

    The first to be elected was an individual Independent, then the next was SNP. But the winning Independent has since declared himself as a Tory after a phase of calling himself ‘Real Independent’ (capitals perhaps put ijn by the newspaper).

    So anyone's guess whether this effectively FPTP by election can be called a Tory defence and whether it will be successful or not.


    https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/07/03/lochabers-andrew-baxter-kicked-out-of-highland-council-independents-group/
    https://www.highland.gov.uk/councillors/28/andrew_baxter
    https://www.highland.gov.uk/byelection

    Edit: Ah - @NickyBreakspear has posted a very useful link, thanks.
    The late Tory Cllr, who was in his 80s, scraped in on transfers. The ward is one of the most SNP-inclined areas of a constituency which is represented by Ian Blackford at Westminster and Kate Forbes at Holyrood. Really ought to be an easy SNP pick-up unless there is a strong Independent candidate who collects the transfers from the other candidates as they get knocked out, round by round, during the count.
    Indeed; independents are wild cards.

    Edit: but AIUI the winning independent last time was an ex-Tory, before being independent, so there may well be crossover there. Unless (a) it was his personal vote more than the ex-Totry bit that counted, and (b) I have got muddled ...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Omicron out and about in S Korea.
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=319800
    The anecdotal details confirm how infectious it seems to be.
    Travel bans will be pointless very soon.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.
  • tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    20mph limits make sense outside schools, not much else.

    They seem to be increasingly used in town centres which is silly. I would have them outside a school and then back to thirty.
    20mph limits are being implemented for air quality control reasons alongside safety..
    I'm sceptical about that working. I can understand the M5 through West Brom being 60mph rather than 70mph for that reason, but I doubt 20mph is much better than 30mph.
    I don't see the argument for air quality in going from 30 to 20mph. Does anyone know the science on this? If I have to change down from 3rd to 2nd gear surely I'm less fuel efficient so producing more pollution - and for a longer time period in a given stretch? It's different than the case for restricting from 70 to 60mph, given the optimum fuel efficient speed for ICEs is supposed to be around 55mph.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117

    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    20mph limits make sense outside schools, not much else.

    They seem to be increasingly used in town centres which is silly. I would have them outside a school and then back to thirty.
    20mph limits are being implemented for air quality control reasons alongside safety..
    I'm sceptical about that working. I can understand the M5 through West Brom being 60mph rather than 70mph for that reason, but I doubt 20mph is much better than 30mph.
    I don't see the argument for air quality in going from 30 to 20mph. Does anyone know the science on this? If I have to change down from 3rd to 2nd gear surely I'm less fuel efficient so producing more pollution - and for a longer time period in a given stretch? It's different than the case for restricting from 70 to 60mph, given the optimum fuel efficient speed for ICEs is supposed to be around 55mph.
    Less need to accelerate and decelerate if the overall speed is lower, might be a factor.
  • MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    I find the 25mph urban limit they have in California (or some of it) works very well.

    20mph is unrealistically slow, and from observation I'd say it's fully observed by around 10% of drivers. The rest ignore it unless passing through a suspected camera zone.
    I'm usually in the 20-25 kind of range in 20mph zones (which cover most of SE London) and that has kept me ticket free. The only speeding fine I have picked up was for 56mph on a small 50mph bit of the A1. I have no problems complying (more or less) with the lower urban limits, which I think make urban driving a lot less stressful.
    On the flip side you get cautious drivers who see a speed limit of 20 and decide to do 15 to be safe, which is really closer to13 as the speedo is always lower than the real speed. Then you are driving along in a long stream of cars with cyclists overtaking, sometimes on both the outside and inside.

    It will be interesting to see the accident data as we start to get it from areas that were reduced to 20 for reasons beyond accident hot spots/schools/etc. I suspect there will be more car/cyclist collisions, but hopefully they are less severe.
    IMO 20mph is reasonable as a justified limit for residential sideroads, and roads in estates. Main / loop roads should be 30. Making rat runs slower seems to me a good thing.

    The risk of severe injury to pedestrians in a collision more than halves between 30mph and 20mph, which I'd say is justification on its own for 20mph as he general limit in streets within residential areas.

    I tend to set the cruise control to 30kph and let it roll on in such an environment.
    Average traffic speed during the daytime according to TFL around here is 7.1mph anyway. Slower than the horse and cart!
    So why is anyone complaining about a 20mph limit :smile: ?

    Mr Toad surfacing for the third time...
    It is more annoying driving back at midnight when there is no traffic, few pedestrians and even fewer cyclists. In the daytime on most roads around me have to admit it makes little difference.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    Good news if it happens at all and if the wording does what is promised. 'We won't prosecute' is not the same as 'you are not legally committing a crime'. And Mr Pursglove's wording is very odd:

    'If those individuаls cаrry out SOLAS operаtions, there will be no prosecutions'

    That's not the same as saying that the RNLI is not committing a crime.

    Also - what is the definition he is using of SOLAS operations? And what about taking them to hospital rather than a border control centre?

  • TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    Boris will without doubt be always known as the Prime Minister of Brexit and covid and while not being great will be spoken about for many years to come
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited December 2021
    RNLI and Coastguard safe but a ferry or fishing boat picking people up is still illegal.

    The fact named exceptions need to be explicitly written into the law shows how bad the law is...
  • TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
  • BJ and his crew seem increasingly crap at doing even this; incompetence or arrogance, or a noxious combination of the two?


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Well offtopic, but I’m going to watch the first round of the new World Rugby Sevens tournament tomorrow, after it was cancelled last year for the obvious reasons - only to find out that, thanks to Sevens now being an Olympic sport, there’s now a single Great Britain team entered in the World 7s tournament, rather than the individual rugby nations.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    20mph limits make sense outside schools, not much else.

    They seem to be increasingly used in town centres which is silly. I would have them outside a school and then back to thirty.
    20mph limits are being implemented for air quality control reasons alongside safety..
    I'm sceptical about that working. I can understand the M5 through West Brom being 60mph rather than 70mph for that reason, but I doubt 20mph is much better than 30mph.
    I don't see the argument for air quality in going from 30 to 20mph. Does anyone know the science on this? If I have to change down from 3rd to 2nd gear surely I'm less fuel efficient so producing more pollution - and for a longer time period in a given stretch? It's different than the case for restricting from 70 to 60mph, given the optimum fuel efficient speed for ICEs is supposed to be around 55mph.
    I don't have the stats but remember that accelerating to 30 for a hundred metres before you have to brake again for the traffic lights is also inefficient.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    eek said:

    RNLI and Coastguard safe but a ferry or fishing boat picking people up is still illegal.

    The fact named exceptions need to be explicitly written into the law shows how bad the law is...
    And are they being written into the law or the accompanying guidance notes? My impression is that the law itself won't change, just the guidance.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited December 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Good news if it happens at all and if the wording does what is promised. 'We won't prosecute' is not the same as 'you are not legally committing a crime'. And Mr Pursglove's wording is very odd:

    'If those individuаls cаrry out SOLAS operаtions, there will be no prosecutions'

    That's not the same as saying that the RNLI is not committing a crime.

    Also - what is the definition he is using of SOLAS operations? And what about taking them to hospital rather than a border control centre?

    Time to move on and accept the matter as far as the Coastguard and RNLI is to be clarified in the legislation

    It states and names the Coastguard and RNLI will not be prosecuted under these laws
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117

    Carnyx said:

    Good news if it happens at all and if the wording does what is promised. 'We won't prosecute' is not the same as 'you are not legally committing a crime'. And Mr Pursglove's wording is very odd:

    'If those individuаls cаrry out SOLAS operаtions, there will be no prosecutions'

    That's not the same as saying that the RNLI is not committing a crime.

    Also - what is the definition he is using of SOLAS operations? And what about taking them to hospital rather than a border control centre?

    Time to move on and accept the matter as far as the Coastguard and RNLI is to be clarified in the legislation
    But we can't move on till it is clarified. Which should never have been necessary.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
    Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.

    History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
  • "The Jew as the stalking horse for anti-immigrant racism, as the voice of its normalization in public discourse, is a new, frightening development. The results of this are unforeseeable, but they bode no good."

    Éric Zemmour Is Opening a New Chapter in France’s Long Racist History
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/opinion/eric-zemmour-france-jews.html
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,008

    London club owner Alex Proud says the company has lost £50 -100K of business in cancellations since Jenny Harries went on the airways at weekend.

    Yep. And there will be more like him. It was an absolutely moronic intervention from Harries. She should hang her head in shame.
    I really think you people are stark raving mad.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    20mph limits make sense outside schools, not much else.

    They seem to be increasingly used in town centres which is silly. I would have them outside a school and then back to thirty.
    20mph limits are being implemented for air quality control reasons alongside safety..
    I'm sceptical about that working. I can understand the M5 through West Brom being 60mph rather than 70mph for that reason, but I doubt 20mph is much better than 30mph.
    I don't see the argument for air quality in going from 30 to 20mph. Does anyone know the science on this? If I have to change down from 3rd to 2nd gear surely I'm less fuel efficient so producing more pollution - and for a longer time period in a given stretch? It's different than the case for restricting from 70 to 60mph, given the optimum fuel efficient speed for ICEs is supposed to be around 55mph.
    The arguments for 20 in city centres, are about reducing accidents with pedestrians, and making life deliberately difficult for motorists to encourage park and ride, rather than pollution per se. The arguments for 60 and 50 on urban motorways do have some scientific basis, but it’s awfully marginal and likely focussed on revenue from speeding fines. Most modern cars can cruise at low speed in high gear if required.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,394
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    slade said:

    As well as OB and S there are 10 local by-elections today. Conservatives are on the defensive in 6 - Adur, Breckland, Highland, Lancaster (x2), and Wealden; in Worthing there is an Ind elected as Con defence. There is a Labour defence in Newport, a Lib Dem defence in North Norfolk, and a Residents defence in Warwick.

    Hmm, in the 2017 election the deceased Tory gentleman in Highland was elected third out of four elected for one of those Scottish multimember constituencies. Normally as by elections are FPTP you compare them with the first to be elected in the general election, not who actually is being replaced.

    The first to be elected was an individual Independent, then the next was SNP. But the winning Independent has since declared himself as a Tory after a phase of calling himself ‘Real Independent’ (capitals perhaps put ijn by the newspaper).

    So anyone's guess whether this effectively FPTP by election can be called a Tory defence and whether it will be successful or not.


    https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/07/03/lochabers-andrew-baxter-kicked-out-of-highland-council-independents-group/
    https://www.highland.gov.uk/councillors/28/andrew_baxter
    https://www.highland.gov.uk/byelection

    Edit: Ah - @NickyBreakspear has posted a very useful link, thanks.
    The late Tory Cllr, who was in his 80s, scraped in on transfers. The ward is one of the most SNP-inclined areas of a constituency which is represented by Ian Blackford at Westminster and Kate Forbes at Holyrood. Really ought to be an easy SNP pick-up unless there is a strong Independent candidate who collects the transfers from the other candidates as they get knocked out, round by round, during the count.
    Indeed; independents are wild cards.

    Edit: but AIUI the winning independent last time was an ex-Tory, before being independent, so there may well be crossover there. Unless (a) it was his personal vote more than the ex-Totry bit that counted, and (b) I have got muddled ...
    I think it was entirely a personal vote. He's apparently very well known. Runs a Post Office, etc. Suspect most voters wouldn't have known of any previous party allegiance. Of course, Tories will have voted for him, but that's mainly because a lot of traditional Tories prefer to "keep politics out of local government".
  • Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    RNLI and Coastguard safe but a ferry or fishing boat picking people up is still illegal.

    The fact named exceptions need to be explicitly written into the law shows how bad the law is...
    And are they being written into the law or the accompanying guidance notes? My impression is that the law itself won't change, just the guidance.
    Haven't you read the article I posted

    It states it will be amended at report stage and will name the Coastguard and RNLI

  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
    Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.

    History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
    Farage was leader of a Leave campaign, but Boris was the effective leader of the rea one and the actual PM who delivered so the notion history won't remember him for that is for the birds.

    Unless we rejoin the EU then ultimately as the EU evolves into being our neighbouring country then history will remember Boris as the PM who ensured we were independent from it.
  • Chris said:

    London club owner Alex Proud says the company has lost £50 -100K of business in cancellations since Jenny Harries went on the airways at weekend.

    Yep. And there will be more like him. It was an absolutely moronic intervention from Harries. She should hang her head in shame.
    I really think you people are stark raving mad.
    That's convenient, we think the same about you.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,845
    edited December 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They were MY 2 questions! :smile:

    My view isn't the same as yours but it's not totally different ballpark either.

    I don't think an easier gender change process, based mainly on self-ID, would lead to widespread abuse. I think its main impact would be positive for the small but significant number of people directly affected - transgender people - and neutral for everybody else. The lives of this minority made better and nobody else any the wiser as they go about their lives. This was the consensus when the reforms were being considered here by the May government. They were shelved imo for reasons unrelated to evidence and reason. As I mentioned before, the new German government is pledged to implement something similar so it will be interesting to see how that develops. Will there be a backlash like here? Will they soon be having the same sort of culture war about it as we are?

    But an easier, less medicalized process doesn't imo mean end of story. What about things in society where you can reasonably argue that sex is more relevant than gender? Pro sports say? Prisons? Refuges? No reason not have bespoke rules around some of this. Based on risk, as you say, but also on the opinion of women if there is a clear consensus there. And you can argue the default either way. Exclude trans unless, or include trans unless. I think the latter because that is in accord with the general principle we usually aspire to for minorities.

    So, make it easier, trust people, allow them to be themselves when not harming others, and consider cases for exclusion - eg sports and prisons - based on evidence and reason not on ignorance and prejudice.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited December 2021
    eek said:

    RNLI and Coastguard safe but a ferry or fishing boat picking people up is still illegal.

    The fact named exceptions need to be explicitly written into the law shows how bad the law is...
    Surely the point is, that ferries or fishing boats need to make sure that people picked up at sea are delivered to immigration officers at the port where they land?

    The fishing port probably won’t have immigration facilities, so they need to dock somewhere that does, rather than just docking wherever they would normally and letting the people off the boat.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880



    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.

    Yes - this broadly seems right to me. For Brexit not to be a failure, it essentially needs to be forgotten, seen as something pretty normal and obvious.

    I do think if Brexit led to the breakup of the UK, that would probably also represent a failure in many people's eyes.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    As per previous thread I hired a Ford Puma the other day which knew, and limited itself to, the speed limit. This was in Scotland where all towns seem to be 20 mph. Must have saved me several tickets.
    That’s one of the reasons I love our Volvos. Their smart safety system must have saved me a fortune over the years. The cars have rock-solid info on all speed limit zones, and warn you if you’re going too fast when changing to a new zone.

    Waze is almost as good, but maybe less user-friendly than an in-built system.

    Our other car has no such system and I often find myself driving far too fast.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    20mph limits make sense outside schools, not much else.

    They seem to be increasingly used in town centres which is silly. I would have them outside a school and then back to thirty.
    The advantage I see is that a lot of muppets see 30 and think that entitles them to go at 39. 20Mph limit and the same muppet probably does 29, so the objective is achieved.
    The difference is that there are a lot more muppets in a 20mph zone.
    I would have gone with 25 - which probably would have had a very similar effect, and caused less dissent.
    When my village was first built, and the roads were unadopted, there was a '19' speed limit. This was abandoned once the roads were adopted, because (so scuttlebutt has it), a 19MPH limit was legally unenforceable at the time.

    (I do note that 19MPH is 30 KMH, so I wonder if they were going a little European...)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    RNLI and Coastguard safe but a ferry or fishing boat picking people up is still illegal.

    The fact named exceptions need to be explicitly written into the law shows how bad the law is...
    And are they being written into the law or the accompanying guidance notes? My impression is that the law itself won't change, just the guidance.
    Haven't you read the article I posted

    It states it will be amended at report stage and will name the Coastguard and RNLI

    It doesn't say WHAT will be amended - ther bill itself (the law) or the supplementary guidance (optional). The wording used is so odd that I suspect the latter.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I love the 20 mph limits. As someone who cycles at that speed around town, it means I can sit in the middle of the lane, preventing dangerous close overtakes, with no legit protest from drivers available.

    My response to the occasional blaring horn is to slow down until they get the message.

    *ducks*

    (FYI In theory you should give bikes as much room as you would a car)

    OTOH, I got done doing 54, down hill, on the frankly ridiculous 40 mph limit on the dual carriageway coming into Edinburgh from the west.
    The one past the airport and RBS?

    I don't know why they reduced the limit from 50mph there.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited December 2021

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
    Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.

    History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
    Farage was leader of a Leave campaign, but Boris was the effective leader of the rea one and the actual PM who delivered so the notion history won't remember him for that is for the birds.

    Unless we rejoin the EU then ultimately as the EU evolves into being our neighbouring country then history will remember Boris as the PM who ensured we were independent from it.
    If we return to the single market, or even just to some other form of closer European relationship outside the EU, as is quite possible, Brexit will not be seen as an open-and-shut process in one direction, but as a stage or a trend.
  • rkrkrk said:



    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.

    Yes - this broadly seems right to me. For Brexit not to be a failure, it essentially needs to be forgotten, seen as something pretty normal and obvious.

    I do think if Brexit led to the breakup of the UK, that would probably also represent a failure in many people's eyes.
    Perhaps in some, but not others. Especially given that it was already being debated pre-Referendum anyway.

    David Lloyd George is remembered as one of the better PMs, helped by winning World War 1. The fact that he 'lost' Ireland is a postscript on his tenure.

    If in the next couple of decades the UK breaks up and ultimately England remains alone outside of the EU as an independent nation then in a century or so English people growing up in England will find the concept of being English entirely normal. Nobody would find Scotland being a foreign country to be any more alien than we today find Ireland being a foreign country.

    If that happens I think Boris like David Lloyd George will be remembered for what he achieved and essentially as the 'father' of English independence as opposed to having 'lost' Scotland and NI [and Wales if they go too].
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    edited December 2021

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I love the 20 mph limits. As someone who cycles at that speed around town, it means I can sit in the middle of the lane, preventing dangerous close overtakes, with no legit protest from drivers available.

    My response to the occasional blaring horn is to slow down until they get the message.

    *ducks*

    (FYI In theory you should give bikes as much room as you would a car)

    OTOH, I got done doing 54, down hill, on the frankly ridiculous 40 mph limit on the dual carriageway coming into Edinburgh from the west.
    The one past the airport and RBS?

    I don't know why they reduced the limit from 50mph there.
    ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

    Cameras and vans seem to be positioned far more where they're likely to raise revenue compared to safety concerns.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,391

    "The Jew as the stalking horse for anti-immigrant racism, as the voice of its normalization in public discourse, is a new, frightening development. The results of this are unforeseeable, but they bode no good."

    Éric Zemmour Is Opening a New Chapter in France’s Long Racist History
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/opinion/eric-zemmour-france-jews.html

    I love it when the 'Good Guys' fight racism with racism.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    RNLI and Coastguard safe but a ferry or fishing boat picking people up is still illegal.

    The fact named exceptions need to be explicitly written into the law shows how bad the law is...
    And are they being written into the law or the accompanying guidance notes? My impression is that the law itself won't change, just the guidance.
    Haven't you read the article I posted

    It states it will be amended at report stage and will name the Coastguard and RNLI

    It doesn't say WHAT will be amended - ther bill itself (the law) or the supplementary guidance (optional). The wording used is so odd that I suspect the latter.
    The matter as regards the Coastguard and RNLI as an issue is over
  • Are we making by-election predictions?
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    "The Jew as the stalking horse for anti-immigrant racism, as the voice of its normalization in public discourse, is a new, frightening development. The results of this are unforeseeable, but they bode no good."

    Éric Zemmour Is Opening a New Chapter in France’s Long Racist History
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/opinion/eric-zemmour-france-jews.html

    The guy claims Petain was good to Jews. Complete nut case.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I love the 20 mph limits. As someone who cycles at that speed around town, it means I can sit in the middle of the lane, preventing dangerous close overtakes, with no legit protest from drivers available.

    My response to the occasional blaring horn is to slow down until they get the message.

    *ducks*

    (FYI In theory you should give bikes as much room as you would a car)

    OTOH, I got done doing 54, down hill, on the frankly ridiculous 40 mph limit on the dual carriageway coming into Edinburgh from the west.
    The one past the airport and RBS?

    I don't know why they reduced the limit from 50mph there.
    ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

    Cameras and vans seem to be positioned far more where they're likely to raise revenue compared to safety concerns.
    It's actually quite heavily built up apart from the bit outside the ring road - whicvh has three interchganges close to each other.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    Just seen the header:

    "Early BJ Exit"

    Things could get messy.



    Oh, my polluted mind.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,845

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392

    Are we making by-election predictions?

    Steady, rather than brisk.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    As per previous thread I hired a Ford Puma the other day which knew, and limited itself to, the speed limit. This was in Scotland where all towns seem to be 20 mph. Must have saved me several tickets.
    That’s one of the reasons I love our Volvos. Their smart safety system must have saved me a fortune over the years. The cars have rock-solid info on all speed limit zones, and warn you if you’re going too fast when changing to a new zone.

    Waze is almost as good, but maybe less user-friendly than an in-built system.

    Our other car has no such system and I often find myself driving far too fast.
    The mismatching cars can be a killer. I did £1500 damage to a land rover a few years ago because I expected it to have reversing sensors and it didn't. Thinking you have ABS when you haven't can also be problematic.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,598
    Chris said:

    London club owner Alex Proud says the company has lost £50 -100K of business in cancellations since Jenny Harries went on the airways at weekend.

    Yep. And there will be more like him. It was an absolutely moronic intervention from Harries. She should hang her head in shame.
    I really think you people are stark raving mad.
    Thank you for your kind words. What exactly is mad about expecting the government to have a clear policy on gatherings? It would strike me as rather important at this time of year, in particular.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Are we making by-election predictions?

    Two Conservative holds.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited December 2021
    Aslan said:

    "The Jew as the stalking horse for anti-immigrant racism, as the voice of its normalization in public discourse, is a new, frightening development. The results of this are unforeseeable, but they bode no good."

    Éric Zemmour Is Opening a New Chapter in France’s Long Racist History
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/opinion/eric-zemmour-france-jews.html

    The guy claims Petain was good to Jews. Complete nut case.
    He's a case for the psychoanalyst's couch, I think ; as a Jewish person himself who has internalized some very strange stuff.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 839
    Say Cons lose both by elections. Gone Monday 20th December?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    20mph limits make sense outside schools, not much else.

    They seem to be increasingly used in town centres which is silly. I would have them outside a school and then back to thirty.
    The advantage I see is that a lot of muppets see 30 and think that entitles them to go at 39. 20Mph limit and the same muppet probably does 29, so the objective is achieved.
    The difference is that there are a lot more muppets in a 20mph zone.
    I would have gone with 25 - which probably would have had a very similar effect, and caused less dissent.
    When my village was first built, and the roads were unadopted, there was a '19' speed limit. This was abandoned once the roads were adopted, because (so scuttlebutt has it), a 19MPH limit was legally unenforceable at the time.

    (I do note that 19MPH is 30 KMH, so I wonder if they were going a little European...)
    You often get weird speed limits on industrial sites. It grabs drivers' attention, and they are more likely to stick to 19 or 21 than 20.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
    I think your numbers are way off. In particular, I think the statement: "Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person," is slightly dangerous.

    As an aside, the trans woman I knew always used the cubicles in men's toilets. But that's just one data point.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2021

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
    Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.

    History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
    Farage was leader of a Leave campaign, but Boris was the effective leader of the rea one and the actual PM who delivered so the notion history won't remember him for that is for the birds.

    Unless we rejoin the EU then ultimately as the EU evolves into being our neighbouring country then history will remember Boris as the PM who ensured we were independent from it.
    No they won't. They will overwhelmingly remember Nigel Farage and then David Cameron as responsible for the UK leaving the EU. Boris just happened to be PM a few years later when the eventual agreed date arrived.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    As per previous thread I hired a Ford Puma the other day which knew, and limited itself to, the speed limit. This was in Scotland where all towns seem to be 20 mph. Must have saved me several tickets.
    That’s one of the reasons I love our Volvos. Their smart safety system must have saved me a fortune over the years. The cars have rock-solid info on all speed limit zones, and warn you if you’re going too fast when changing to a new zone.

    Waze is almost as good, but maybe less user-friendly than an in-built system.

    Our other car has no such system and I often find myself driving far too fast.
    The mismatching cars can be a killer. I did £1500 damage to a land rover a few years ago because I expected it to have reversing sensors and it didn't. Thinking you have ABS when you haven't can also be problematic.
    I discovered the hard way that a foreign rental car didn’t have ABS. Just managed to stop in time, only thanks to earlier performance driver training kicking in. Worth remembering that, while ABS has been mandatory in Europe for a while, it isn’t elsewhere in the world. If my wife had been driving, she’d have hit the brakes harder when the skid started, and had a crash.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
    True. I'm not a huge frequenter of ladies' loos but they are surely divided into public space, and lockable cubicles. I think the argument is constructed in reverse - you start out wanting a Rosa Parks moment and then wonder where to put it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited December 2021
    Interesting


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies

    Among Britons who say they don't know how they would vote in a General Election, for which parties could they see themselves voting?

    Conservative: 24%
    Green: 21%
    An Independent: 20%
    Labour: 19%
    Don't know: 35%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1466361542732136455?t=Ub14Foip7_jzmDdlE42Q3w&s=19
  • theakes said:

    Say Cons lose both by elections. Gone Monday 20th December?

    Very embarrassing for Boris but in the end it's two by elections. So no he won't be going anywhere.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    They changed it to 30? 50 was bad enough, with the f***ing bus lane that Prescott used as his private limo lane.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
    I think your numbers are way off. In particular, I think the statement: "Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person," is slightly dangerous.

    As an aside, the trans woman I knew always used the cubicles in men's toilets. But that's just one data point.
    Facts are true or not, rather than dangerous or not. Obviously there's all sorts of observation and reporting biases to watch out for, but I don't think you can look at the news in general and not think that male perverts outnumber trans men by at least x 100.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited December 2021
    Aslan said:

    "The Jew as the stalking horse for anti-immigrant racism, as the voice of its normalization in public discourse, is a new, frightening development. The results of this are unforeseeable, but they bode no good."

    Éric Zemmour Is Opening a New Chapter in France’s Long Racist History
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/opinion/eric-zemmour-france-jews.html

    The guy claims Petain was good to Jews. Complete nut case.
    But bizarrely given lots of warm coverage by the Spectator et al because he is a friend of Brexit.

    Or at least, an enemy of an enemy of Brexit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Interesting


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies

    Among Britons who say they don't know how they would vote in a General Election, for which parties could they see themselves voting?

    Conservative: 24%
    Green: 21%
    An Independent: 20%
    Labour: 19%
    Don't know: 35%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1466361542732136455?t=Ub14Foip7_jzmDdlE42Q3w&s=19

    There’s a huge opportunity for some independents, to start building up a local following.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Interesting


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies

    Among Britons who say they don't know how they would vote in a General Election, for which parties could they see themselves voting?

    Conservative: 24%
    Green: 21%
    An Independent: 20%
    Labour: 19%
    Don't know: 35%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1466361542732136455?t=Ub14Foip7_jzmDdlE42Q3w&s=19

    If the Greens could elect a halfway decent / presentable leader, Labour would be in a lot of trouble. A lot of their urban, professional, middle class vote would defect.

    However, there is a reason why Green parties in the U.K. and US just have not broken into the mainstream - they are ideological, rather than pragmatic, and have little interest in the everyday concerns of a large chunk of the electorate.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
    Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.

    History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
    Farage was leader of a Leave campaign, but Boris was the effective leader of the rea one and the actual PM who delivered so the notion history won't remember him for that is for the birds.

    Unless we rejoin the EU then ultimately as the EU evolves into being our neighbouring country then history will remember Boris as the PM who ensured we were independent from it.
    That's looking too far ahead imo.

    At present the EU is in a reet mess, and there is little consensus about where to go next. And so many internal tensions that it is questionable if they will be able to move once it is agreed.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    They changed it to 30? 50 was bad enough, with the f***ing bus lane that Prescott used as his private limo lane.
    It went from no one knows, no one cares, to 50 to 40 and now 30 of all things. Absolutely crazy.

    Google tells me that it was originally on account of structural repairs needed but that the change has now been made permanent. Of course it has. Muppets.

    https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/30mph-speed-limit-to-stay-on-londons-a40-westway-even-after-flyover-repairs-are-complete-15-10-2021/
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678
    Report from the Bootle constituency this morning.

    Turned up at 10am at the local vaccination station. One person already in there, and two arrived whilst I was voting.
    Everyone appeared to be voting Pfzier apart from one lady who loudly announced she'd be voting Moderna.
    Queue forming as I left.

    Turnout was most definitely brisk.

    Bet accordingly.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    The Westway - talk about an absolutely catastrophic urban planning decision. Whoever recommended that should be made to live in one of the tower blocks by the Westway in perpetuity.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,845
    edited December 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
    I get your point about 'numbers' but to develop it -

    The risk being floated is that if legal gender change is made easier there'll be a serious problem with male heterosexual predators abusing the process in order to target women.

    Now if - like the other day - we're talking about men who have already committed a sex crime and now claim to be female in order to serve their time in a women's prison, then yes, I can see the relevance.

    But not so much if we're thinking more generally about (eg) public toilets or changing rooms. These places are not by and large actively policed for sex or gender. For the sort of predator we're talking about to try and access them doesn't require him to legally become a woman. So it's not clear to me why making the legal gender change easier would lead to such people availing themselves of it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I love the 20 mph limits. As someone who cycles at that speed around town, it means I can sit in the middle of the lane, preventing dangerous close overtakes, with no legit protest from drivers available.

    My response to the occasional blaring horn is to slow down until they get the message.

    *ducks*

    (FYI In theory you should give bikes as much room as you would a car)

    OTOH, I got done doing 54, down hill, on the frankly ridiculous 40 mph limit on the dual carriageway coming into Edinburgh from the west.
    The one past the airport and RBS?

    I don't know why they reduced the limit from 50mph there.
    ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

    Cameras and vans seem to be positioned far more where they're likely to raise revenue compared to safety concerns.
    It's actually quite heavily built up apart from the bit outside the ring road - whicvh has three interchganges close to each other.
    The bit beyond the ring road is the bit where the speed limit changed, and the interchanges seem to have decently long slip roads (certainly the one for the airport does) which are a bit absurd for merging onto a 40mph road.

    It's not a long stretch of road, so it hardly matters, but I don't see the logic in it. Whereas with the other bit of road nearby past the new housing development at Cammo, you can understand reducing the limit from 40 to 30 because of the development.

    It's the random, and poorly signposted, changes from 30 to 20 that are most problematic. Some of the roads around Leith are absurd. It gets hard to keep track, and I don't understand why you would have a speed camera sign without a reminder of what the speed limit is. Didn't Palmer have a ten-minute rule bill on that?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
    Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.

    History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
    Farage was leader of a Leave campaign, but Boris was the effective leader of the rea one and the actual PM who delivered so the notion history won't remember him for that is for the birds.

    Unless we rejoin the EU then ultimately as the EU evolves into being our neighbouring country then history will remember Boris as the PM who ensured we were independent from it.
    That's looking too far ahead imo.

    At present the EU is in a reet mess, and there is little consensus about where to go next. And so many internal tensions that it is questionable if they will be able to move once it is agreed.

    In ten years time, the EU will be in a mess and for much the same reasons.

    As a case, see the Global Gateway programme just announced. Trumpeted as a major EU initiative, it has all the hallmarks of a massive subsidy to German companies (with some French ones allowed for the sake of unity).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
    One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.

    Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
    I think your numbers are way off. In particular, I think the statement: "Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person," is slightly dangerous.

    As an aside, the trans woman I knew always used the cubicles in men's toilets. But that's just one data point.
    Facts are true or not, rather than dangerous or not. Obviously there's all sorts of observation and reporting biases to watch out for, but I don't think you can look at the news in general and not think that male perverts outnumber trans men by at least x 100.
    IMV it's dangerous because it's a hop, skip and a jump from: "it's more likely to be a pervert than a trans person" to "they are a pervert". or, to put it another way: "that man in a dress is probably a pervert. Let's get him!"

    IANAE on perverts. However, I am led to believe that they vary in their predilections massively (and indeed, what constitutes a perverted act is also vague in some cases - homosexuality was often seen as being 'perverted' until recent times). This means that whilst there *may* be as many perverts as you claim, they will have a wide range of 'interests' - and many are probably appalled at the idea of dressing as a woman, or even voyeuristic acts.

    Any PB perverts care to speak out on this? We have experts on everything else ... ;)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2021
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    The Westway - talk about an absolutely catastrophic urban planning decision. Whoever recommended that should be made to live in one of the tower blocks by the Westway in perpetuity.
    There's a mix of public and private towers - of course the most famous of the former being Grenfell. Flats in the private ones go for anything up to £1m+ so not a huge punishment.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
    I get your point about 'numbers' but to develop it -

    The risk being floated is that if legal gender change is made easier there'll be a serious problem with male heterosexual predators abusing the process in order to target women.

    Now if - like the other day - we're talking about men who have already committed a sex crime and now claim to be female in order to serve their time in a women's prison, then yes, I can see the relevance.

    But not so much if we're thinking more generally about (eg) public toilets or changing rooms. These places are not by and large actively policed for sex or gender. For the sort of predator we're talking about to try and access them doesn't require him to legally become a woman. So it's not clear why making such a legal gender change easier would lead to such people availing themselves of it.
    I guess the question is - like the Milwaukee prosecutor said who let out the chap who drove a SUV into a crowd - how many cases are you willing to tolerate in support of this change?

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    They changed it to 30? 50 was bad enough, with the f***ing bus lane that Prescott used as his private limo lane.
    It went from no one knows, no one cares, to 50 to 40 and now 30 of all things. Absolutely crazy.

    Google tells me that it was originally on account of structural repairs needed but that the change has now been made permanent. Of course it has. Muppets.

    https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/30mph-speed-limit-to-stay-on-londons-a40-westway-even-after-flyover-repairs-are-complete-15-10-2021/
    That’s nuts. I can understand that the viaduct might need some work, as happened with the M5 and M6 around Birmingham, but to keep a 30 limit after the works is nuts. They’re just trying to encourage you to stop outside and get a train, but without saying it explicitly. If they did say it explicitly, and created some massive car parks and parkway stations, then people might be more accepting of the strategy.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    The Westway - talk about an absolutely catastrophic urban planning decision. Whoever recommended that should be made to live in one of the tower blocks by the Westway in perpetuity.
    There's a mix of public and private towers - of course the most famous of the former being Grenfell. Flats in the private ones go for anything up to £1m+ so not a huge punishment.
    Yes, I should have said in the most rundown public tower with drug addicts and hookers for neighbours. Plus having to wear a gimp suit.
  • I drive in a way so I don't need to use my brakes. Obviously I have to sometimes, but I can do my entire over 30 mile commute only using the brakes at the end of my street where there's a T-junction that I can't see out of until I get right to the junction, and when I park at work, if I get lucky at roundabouts and junctions. I keep just below the speed limit everywhere, except where a limit starts at the bottom of a hill; there I'll let the hill slow me down to the limit so break it for a few seconds.

    I used to be a car-twat and race around impatiently everywhere. I'm not sure why I stopped doing that; it's only since that I've realised how dangerous and expensive, fuel-wise, it was. And, it really didn't get me anywhere much quicker.

    My commute now on a normal day takes me 53 minutes. The fastest I ever managed it when I was 'racing' it was 44 minutes. 9 minutes saved. And that cost me twice as much in petrol.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    As per previous thread I hired a Ford Puma the other day which knew, and limited itself to, the speed limit. This was in Scotland where all towns seem to be 20 mph. Must have saved me several tickets.
    That’s one of the reasons I love our Volvos. Their smart safety system must have saved me a fortune over the years. The cars have rock-solid info on all speed limit zones, and warn you if you’re going too fast when changing to a new zone.

    Waze is almost as good, but maybe less user-friendly than an in-built system.

    Our other car has no such system and I often find myself driving far too fast.
    The mismatching cars can be a killer. I did £1500 damage to a land rover a few years ago because I expected it to have reversing sensors and it didn't. Thinking you have ABS when you haven't can also be problematic.
    I discovered the hard way that a foreign rental car didn’t have ABS. Just managed to stop in time, only thanks to earlier performance driver training kicking in. Worth remembering that, while ABS has been mandatory in Europe for a while, it isn’t elsewhere in the world. If my wife had been driving, she’d have hit the brakes harder when the skid started, and had a crash.
    Assumptions are Expensive :smile: .

    Three of the best things I specced on mine were the speed limit display, the reversing camera (and radar which stops when it detects movement, as my drive is a blind exit on a bike-route), and the over-taker in blind spot warning which is an old error for me.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I love the 20 mph limits. As someone who cycles at that speed around town, it means I can sit in the middle of the lane, preventing dangerous close overtakes, with no legit protest from drivers available.

    My response to the occasional blaring horn is to slow down until they get the message.

    *ducks*

    (FYI In theory you should give bikes as much room as you would a car)

    OTOH, I got done doing 54, down hill, on the frankly ridiculous 40 mph limit on the dual carriageway coming into Edinburgh from the west.
    The one past the airport and RBS?

    I don't know why they reduced the limit from 50mph there.
    ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

    Cameras and vans seem to be positioned far more where they're likely to raise revenue compared to safety concerns.
    It's actually quite heavily built up apart from the bit outside the ring road - whicvh has three interchganges close to each other.
    The bit beyond the ring road is the bit where the speed limit changed, and the interchanges seem to have decently long slip roads (certainly the one for the airport does) which are a bit absurd for merging onto a 40mph road.

    It's not a long stretch of road, so it hardly matters, but I don't see the logic in it. Whereas with the other bit of road nearby past the new housing development at Cammo, you can understand reducing the limit from 40 to 30 because of the development.

    It's the random, and poorly signposted, changes from 30 to 20 that are most problematic. Some of the roads around Leith are absurd. It gets hard to keep track, and I don't understand why you would have a speed camera sign without a reminder of what the speed limit is. Didn't Palmer have a ten-minute rule bill on that?
    It should be law, that every speed camera has a speed limit sign on the back of it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2021
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    The Westway - talk about an absolutely catastrophic urban planning decision. Whoever recommended that should be made to live in one of the tower blocks by the Westway in perpetuity.
    There's a mix of public and private towers - of course the most famous of the former being Grenfell. Flats in the private ones go for anything up to £1m+ so not a huge punishment.
    Yes, I should have said in the most rundown public tower with drug addicts and hookers for neighbours. Plus having to wear a gimp suit.
    Time was when only the brave or the foolhardy would venture into many of the roads around Portobello, All Saint's Road (of the Mangrove fame) being one such. Public housing rapidly becomes private. Houses in All Saints Rd now would be around £3-5m so it might be an enforced way of getting you onto the speculative property ladder.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    I drive in a way so I don't need to use my brakes. Obviously I have to sometimes, but I can do my entire over 30 mile commute only using the brakes at the end of my street where there's a T-junction that I can't see out of until I get right to the junction, and when I park at work, if I get lucky at roundabouts and junctions. I keep just below the speed limit everywhere, except where a limit starts at the bottom of a hill; there I'll let the hill slow me down to the limit so break it for a few seconds.

    I used to be a car-twat and race around impatiently everywhere. I'm not sure why I stopped doing that; it's only since that I've realised how dangerous and expensive, fuel-wise, it was. And, it really didn't get me anywhere much quicker.

    My commute now on a normal day takes me 53 minutes. The fastest I ever managed it when I was 'racing' it was 44 minutes. 9 minutes saved. And that cost me twice as much in petrol.

    But was much more fun.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,845
    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
    I get your point about 'numbers' but to develop it -

    The risk being floated is that if legal gender change is made easier there'll be a serious problem with male heterosexual predators abusing the process in order to target women.

    Now if - like the other day - we're talking about men who have already committed a sex crime and now claim to be female in order to serve their time in a women's prison, then yes, I can see the relevance.

    But not so much if we're thinking more generally about (eg) public toilets or changing rooms. These places are not by and large actively policed for sex or gender. For the sort of predator we're talking about to try and access them doesn't require him to legally become a woman. So it's not clear why making such a legal gender change easier would lead to such people availing themselves of it.
    I guess the question is - like the Milwaukee prosecutor said who let out the chap who drove a SUV into a crowd - how many cases are you willing to tolerate in support of this change?
    Or alternatively - how many trans people's suicides are you prepared to tolerate in order to satisfy the bone-headed bigotry of people with an aversion to evidence and reason?

    Or, and this is what I actually recommend, we don't conduct the debate via jaundiced loaded questions.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    They changed it to 30? 50 was bad enough, with the f***ing bus lane that Prescott used as his private limo lane.
    It went from no one knows, no one cares, to 50 to 40 and now 30 of all things. Absolutely crazy.

    Google tells me that it was originally on account of structural repairs needed but that the change has now been made permanent. Of course it has. Muppets.

    https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/30mph-speed-limit-to-stay-on-londons-a40-westway-even-after-flyover-repairs-are-complete-15-10-2021/
    That’s nuts. I can understand that the viaduct might need some work, as happened with the M5 and M6 around Birmingham, but to keep a 30 limit after the works is nuts. They’re just trying to encourage you to stop outside and get a train, but without saying it explicitly. If they did say it explicitly, and created some massive car parks and parkway stations, then people might be more accepting of the strategy.
    If it's the viaduct I'm thinking of, then it had serious problems ten years ago because of corrosion due to salt - it is a post-tensioned structure and the cables were rotting. Perhaps the repairs they've done are enough to reverse some of the damage, and not all of it, meaning a lower speed limit is now apt. Reducing the speed reduces the rolling load exerted on the structure considerably, along with dynamic braking/acceleration forces.

    Here's a bridge that collapsed because of salt corrosion of its post-tensioned cables:
    https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1989/1211/1211-005.pdf
    https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/iicep.1988.179
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I love the 20 mph limits. As someone who cycles at that speed around town, it means I can sit in the middle of the lane, preventing dangerous close overtakes, with no legit protest from drivers available.

    My response to the occasional blaring horn is to slow down until they get the message.

    *ducks*

    (FYI In theory you should give bikes as much room as you would a car)

    OTOH, I got done doing 54, down hill, on the frankly ridiculous 40 mph limit on the dual carriageway coming into Edinburgh from the west.
    The one past the airport and RBS?

    I don't know why they reduced the limit from 50mph there.
    ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

    Cameras and vans seem to be positioned far more where they're likely to raise revenue compared to safety concerns.
    It's actually quite heavily built up apart from the bit outside the ring road - whicvh has three interchganges close to each other.
    The bit beyond the ring road is the bit where the speed limit changed, and the interchanges seem to have decently long slip roads (certainly the one for the airport does) which are a bit absurd for merging onto a 40mph road.

    It's not a long stretch of road, so it hardly matters, but I don't see the logic in it. Whereas with the other bit of road nearby past the new housing development at Cammo, you can understand reducing the limit from 40 to 30 because of the development.

    It's the random, and poorly signposted, changes from 30 to 20 that are most problematic. Some of the roads around Leith are absurd. It gets hard to keep track, and I don't understand why you would have a speed camera sign without a reminder of what the speed limit is. Didn't Palmer have a ten-minute rule bill on that?
    It should be law, that every speed camera has a speed limit sign on the back of it.
    The ones in Leeds have a reminder sign about 200 yards prior with the speed camera sign and the current limit.

    Although I've noticed that speed cameras don't look how they used to now, newer ones look like CCTV cameras on poles (still painted yellow) and face towards you as you approach.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Important message for car-twats:

    Sarah Phelps
    @PhelpsieSarah
    I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
    https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371

    I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.

    In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
    I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:

    https://tinyurl.com/bdzyz8cj

    For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.

    Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
    As per previous thread I hired a Ford Puma the other day which knew, and limited itself to, the speed limit. This was in Scotland where all towns seem to be 20 mph. Must have saved me several tickets.
    That’s one of the reasons I love our Volvos. Their smart safety system must have saved me a fortune over the years. The cars have rock-solid info on all speed limit zones, and warn you if you’re going too fast when changing to a new zone.

    Waze is almost as good, but maybe less user-friendly than an in-built system.

    Our other car has no such system and I often find myself driving far too fast.
    The mismatching cars can be a killer. I did £1500 damage to a land rover a few years ago because I expected it to have reversing sensors and it didn't. Thinking you have ABS when you haven't can also be problematic.
    I discovered the hard way that a foreign rental car didn’t have ABS. Just managed to stop in time, only thanks to earlier performance driver training kicking in. Worth remembering that, while ABS has been mandatory in Europe for a while, it isn’t elsewhere in the world. If my wife had been driving, she’d have hit the brakes harder when the skid started, and had a crash.
    Assumptions are Expensive :smile: .

    Three of the best things I specced on mine were the speed limit display, the reversing camera (and radar which stops when it detects movement, as my drive is a blind exit on a bike-route), and the over-taker in blind spot warning which is an old error for me.

    I’ve actually gone the opposite way - was driving my wife’s car for ages that had a reversing camera, but my own new (old) car doesn’t, and I’ve gone from just looking at the camera view to actually looking out and turning round to see out of the back window! Even when driving her car, I now instinctively turn around and look out the back - which of course, was how we were trained to reverse as teenagers.

    Blind spot lights are invaluable, one of the best modern safety features.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    Good news if it happens at all and if the wording does what is promised. 'We won't prosecute' is not the same as 'you are not legally committing a crime'. And Mr Pursglove's wording is very odd:

    'If those individuаls cаrry out SOLAS operаtions, there will be no prosecutions'

    That's not the same as saying that the RNLI is not committing a crime.

    Also - what is the definition he is using of SOLAS operations? And what about taking them to hospital rather than a border control centre?

    The SOLAS wording is weaselly as hell, I suspect.

    SOLAS reg 33 "The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so."

    Distress is a higher test than urgency (Mayday vs Pan Pan in terms of radio messages); a typical example (guess whether I have just done a VHF radio operator course) is that an engine breakdown is urgency, not distress unless you are being blown on to a lee shore or whatever. So this means or is intended to mean that if a dinghy calls up the RNLI in good weather and says the engine doesn't work, give us a tow to Dover, that is not protected by the SOLAS exclusion.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    I am aware of the 2 year requirement. Personally I don't have a problem with someone who is genuinely transitioning to womanhood using ladies loos.

    But if you have self-ID there is no requirement for any sort of transitioning or diagnosis at all. So

    So any man can access a woman's space and cannot be challenged. That will become a predators charter. Women will not be safely able to assume that a man is actually a genuine transwoman or free to challenge.

    That is why there is push back to make the boundaries harder than they are now.

    As for your claim that male transwomen are at risk in men's loos, what is your evidence for that?

    We know the risk that women face from men and we also know the risk they face from transwomen. There are currently 432 transwomen convicted of rape which in English law can only be done using a penis. Either those men are not genuine transwomen - which rather highlights the risks that self-ID will be abused - or they are, in which case it raises equally difficult questions, which need further research before changes are made.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    "IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets."

    No one disputes that, but it is a numbers game. We live in a country where there are 35m women who want from time to time to use a toilet, there are some m to f transsexuals and some devious predatory heterosexual males. The numbers for these latter categories are hard to come by, but I'd say high tens of thousands vs low millions. Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person, and is an equal threat to women and trans persons using the toilet. the threat to trans women is usually missed, possibly because commenters thing trans women either do not exist or are munters nobody would want to molest.
    I think your numbers are way off. In particular, I think the statement: "Therefore to a first approximation a man dressed as a woman using a womens' toilet is more likely a pervert than a trans person," is slightly dangerous.

    As an aside, the trans woman I knew always used the cubicles in men's toilets. But that's just one data point.
    Facts are true or not, rather than dangerous or not. Obviously there's all sorts of observation and reporting biases to watch out for, but I don't think you can look at the news in general and not think that male perverts outnumber trans men by at least x 100.
    IMV it's dangerous because it's a hop, skip and a jump from: "it's more likely to be a pervert than a trans person" to "they are a pervert". or, to put it another way: "that man in a dress is probably a pervert. Let's get him!"

    IANAE on perverts. However, I am led to believe that they vary in their predilections massively (and indeed, what constitutes a perverted act is also vague in some cases - homosexuality was often seen as being 'perverted' until recent times). This means that whilst there *may* be as many perverts as you claim, they will have a wide range of 'interests' - and many are probably appalled at the idea of dressing as a woman, or even voyeuristic acts.

    Any PB perverts care to speak out on this? We have experts on everything else ... ;)
    If you think like that, try a course in elementary logic.

    I don't mean paraphiliacs in general, i mean predatory hetero males. rapists, "Me Too" type abusers, Epstein and friends. Lot of them about.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
    My apologies to you. Your two questions are good ones. My mistake.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    The most irritating speed limit on the British Isles is that on the Westway, a three-lane dual carriageway, of.....30mph. Absolutely bonkers. It used to be one of the joys of motoring to sail along, in the middle of Central London, at, ahem 70mph.

    They changed it to 30? 50 was bad enough, with the f***ing bus lane that Prescott used as his private limo lane.
    It went from no one knows, no one cares, to 50 to 40 and now 30 of all things. Absolutely crazy.

    Google tells me that it was originally on account of structural repairs needed but that the change has now been made permanent. Of course it has. Muppets.

    https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/30mph-speed-limit-to-stay-on-londons-a40-westway-even-after-flyover-repairs-are-complete-15-10-2021/
    That’s nuts. I can understand that the viaduct might need some work, as happened with the M5 and M6 around Birmingham, but to keep a 30 limit after the works is nuts. They’re just trying to encourage you to stop outside and get a train, but without saying it explicitly. If they did say it explicitly, and created some massive car parks and parkway stations, then people might be more accepting of the strategy.
    If it's the viaduct I'm thinking of, then it had serious problems ten years ago because of corrosion due to salt - it is a post-tensioned structure and the cables were rotting. Perhaps the repairs they've done are enough to reverse some of the damage, and not all of it, meaning a lower speed limit is now apt. Reducing the speed reduces the rolling load exerted on the structure considerably, along with dynamic braking/acceleration forces.

    Here's a bridge that collapsed because of salt corrosion of its post-tensioned cables:
    https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1989/1211/1211-005.pdf
    https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/iicep.1988.179
    Maybe they did only half rebuild it, and that’s the reason. The viaduct in question is the A40, through Acton, White City and Paddington, that ends up on the Euston Rd.
  • Predictions for the two by-elections:

    Old Bexley and Sidcup - Tory Hold, but with only around 45% of the vote on a very low turnout. Labour around 10 behind, Reform to pick up over 10% of the vote and finish 3rd.

    North Shropshire - a perfect Lib Dem by-election despite the leave demographics. Extremely close on a better turnout between Lib Dem and Tory with no more than 5% between them. My money is on the Lib Dems (because that's where the value is) but this looks like a coin toss to me.

    Looks entirely plausible. Much better chance for LD in North Shropshire than for LAB in Bexley. LD gains in by elections are quite common, not so for LAB or CON directly gaining from each other.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,845
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
    One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.

    Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
    Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.

    But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.

    Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.

    Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.

    The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.

    So what would be great about his PM-ship.

    The Great British Public won World War II.
    The Great American Public won the War of Independence.

    History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc

    Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.

    I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.

    Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.

    * Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
    Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.

    History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
    Farage was leader of a Leave campaign, but Boris was the effective leader of the rea one and the actual PM who delivered so the notion history won't remember him for that is for the birds.

    Unless we rejoin the EU then ultimately as the EU evolves into being our neighbouring country then history will remember Boris as the PM who ensured we were independent from it.
    No they won't. They will overwhelmingly remember Nigel Farage and then David Cameron as responsible for the UK leaving the EU. Boris just happened to be PM a few years later when the eventual agreed date arrived.
    Boris "just happened to be PM a few years later" 😂😂

    Nice attempt to rewrite history there. No doubt when he called the referendum, Cameron wanted it to be him versus Farage. If it had been then Remain would have won by a landslide. It would have been like Chirac v Le Pen in 2002.

    But that isn't what happened. There's a reason reports seem to agree that Cameron was upset when he found out that Boris was backing Leave. It was the likes of Gove and Boris backing Leave that gave Leave the impetus, credibility etc that Farage alone never could. There's a reason reports say that Cameron knew Boris was one person who could help swing the result against him, and ultimately did.

    There's a reason that Boris was the face of the Leave campaign during the Referendum and not Farage. There's a reason in the TV Debates that Boris was the frontman on the BBC, ITV etc and not Farage.

    You're being churlish for no good reason.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Someone here persuaded me to subscribe to the (free) American Morning Dispatch emails, which come from a conservative think-tank. They often illustrate the very best of conservatism, in my view - an emphasis on family, mutual respect, religion and tolerance - and are sometimes beautifully written. They aren't my natural habitat but they're often a pleasure to read and think about. The current one is about the pleasures of solitude:

    https://mattlabash.substack.com/p/snow-job
  • Are we going to have a by-election predictions competition?

    My prediction:

    Bexley: Tory hold by 8% margin.
    North Shropshire: Lib Dem gain by 1% margin.

    I expect the Tories will regain North Shropshire at the subsequent General Election.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.

    Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.

    Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ).
    That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
    I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.

    Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
    Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.

    This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.

    And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.

    Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.

    Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.

    It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.

    I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.

    And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
    It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.

    I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).

    " First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."

    I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
    There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?

    So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.

    This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.

    Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
    Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.

    This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
    Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.

    @JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.

    As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.

    The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
    They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.

    As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.

    IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.

    Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.

    Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.

    Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.

    As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
    Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
    One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.

    Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
    Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.

    But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
    Not a logical link but an example Isam was going on about last week

    https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-woman-accused-using-sex-22260053

    This historic report adds a bit of context (given it's the same person)

    https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/local-news/sex-assault-shame-teesside-ex-soldier-3692966
This discussion has been closed.