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?
The problem is that the male perverts, when caught in the women’s toilets, will say that they are trans women and that anyone questioning them is transphobic and committing offences under the Gender Recognition Act.
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
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.
I think I actually corner a bit faster than I used to. I'm much more in control of the car now that I don't have to use the brakes to slow down for corners. Whenever I've got some car-twat tailgating me, I lose them at the bends before they chase me down again on the next straight bit.
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.
Indeed but unless they break up, Federations tend to evolve in one direction and the EU is a relatively fast speed compared to prior ones.
In Federations, over time power accumulates in the centre and the EU hasn't been shy to take its opportunities to take power. Once that happens, it becomes hard to reverse short of leaving the federation.
Even if its a mess, even if its difficult, the nation of federations is to either centralise or disband in general. I expect the EU to continue evolving into a federal state like the USA or Australia etc have done before it.
It may be messy, but hopefully not as messy as middle of the nineteenth century America was. England will evolve differently and over time it will just be considered normal and not debatable as to why England is not a part of federal Europe.
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!
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.
You are being naive. Men are already abusing self-ID. See what's happened in the Girl Guides or in the rape crisis centre in Scotland. Or the rape therapy group in Brighton. Or in California jails for women. Or in womens' prisons here.
And real harm is happening now to real women. The women raped by men claiming to be trans - in prison and out of it. The rape victims denied therapy because they did not want a man present. The rape victims told by the Head of the Scottish rape crisis Centre that they were bigots for not wanting men around etc. The girls refusing to use unisex toilets in school because they do not want boys around when they are menstruating.
I don't think you have a clue as to how real the fear is when womens boundaries are breached by men. Nor why we are suspicious about men who demand entry into our spaces as of right rather than with our permission. Why should we trust someone who aggressively demands and insists rather than politely ask and back off if refused?
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.
Fair play to you for still explicitly linking Boris and Brexit. Most of his admirers are now saying it wasn't his fault, he was put in an impossible situation and blame the EU.
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.
I was quite taken with the arrangement in Forgan's in St Andrews, 2 standard communal loos and a corridor with c.6 self contained non binary lavs. Not every bevy shoap has the space and money for that of course.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
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.
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.
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.
Also design loads were presumably insufficient for modern traffic - more traffic and bigger lorries? The Forth Road Bridge (1964) problem.
"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."
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Interestingly the crow laws look like they'll come up a bit in the final judgement. The pro abortion position is that stare decisis makes this an utterly final position, whereas the anti-abortion argument is that the Supreme Court has absolutely overturned their own decisions when they think the former position is clearly wrong, such as in the 60s for civil rights.
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.
Fair play to you for still explicitly linking Boris and Brexit. Most of his admirers are now saying it wasn't his fault, he was put in an impossible situation and blame the EU.
If you're referring to the Ireland situation then the EU did try to put Britain into an impossible situation, a real life Kobayashi Maru.
Boris responded to that situation like Captain Kirk though.
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:
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.
Fair play to you for still explicitly linking Boris and Brexit. Most of his admirers are now saying it wasn't his fault, he was put in an impossible situation and blame the EU.
If you're referring to the Ireland situation then the EU did try to put Britain into an impossible situation, a real life Kobayashi Maru.
Boris responded to that situation like Captain Kirk though.
He broke in at night and reprogrammed the computer? I missed that bit!
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Recent Republican attacks on voting rights suggest that Jim Crow is alive and well, sadly.
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.
Fair play to you for still explicitly linking Boris and Brexit. Most of his admirers are now saying it wasn't his fault, he was put in an impossible situation and blame the EU.
If you're referring to the Ireland situation then the EU did try to put Britain into an impossible situation, a real life Kobayashi Maru.
Boris responded to that situation like Captain Kirk though.
He broke in at night and reprogrammed the computer? I missed that bit!
In a manner of speaking, yes.
He managed to get Article 16 added into the Protocol which appeared to be a seemingly innocuous addition to the routines, but has then been able to be exploited to create a winning scenario.
Psychologically it's easier for many Tories to vote Lib Dem I expect compared to Labour. The Lib Dems have what ? 11 seats (Not really a national level threat), they've never had a leader like Corbyn & their on the ground operations are always very motivated.
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Recent Republican attacks on voting rights suggest that Jim Crow is alive and well, sadly.
Yep - applying my old ACA principle of 'substance over form' supports such a conclusion.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
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:
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:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Sadly, not so fast. When it comes to slavery, equality before the law, segregation and goodness knows what else it is reasonably clear which side is the progressive cause.
Abortion is very different for a number of reasons. There is nothing obviously progressive about killing the unborn, and nothing obviously progressive about denying women the right to choose.
Each side assembles a formidably strong but also fatally flawed case; neither side can acknowledge the weaknesses in their own or the strength of the other side.
So both sides get angry with the other.
Though so different it has similarities with how Brexit plays out.
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.
How long ago… the speed limit on the Westway was 40 (and it should be) for as long as I remember
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Interestingly the crow laws look like they'll come up a bit in the final judgement. The pro abortion position is that stare decisis makes this an utterly final position, whereas the anti-abortion argument is that the Supreme Court has absolutely overturned their own decisions when they think the former position is clearly wrong, such as in the 60s for civil rights.
But isn't essence of the 'right to choose' position that this is a matter of fundamental principle that state rights cannot encroach upon?
Equating female autonomy with racial equality in this sense.
That's how I look at it, regardless of the legal technicals.
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
And a realistic chance [indeed probability] that Brexit referendum would have been lost with Farage leading the Leave campaign.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for gauging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
Of course it was a realistic chance, but a small one. As evidenced by the overwhelming majority given to someone (anyone) who promised to deliver it. In the history books it will be huffing and puffing.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Sadly, not so fast. When it comes to slavery, equality before the law, segregation and goodness knows what else it is reasonably clear which side is the progressive cause.
Abortion is very different for a number of reasons. There is nothing obviously progressive about killing the unborn, and nothing obviously progressive about denying women the right to choose.
Each side assembles a formidably strong but also fatally flawed case; neither side can acknowledge the weaknesses in their own or the strength of the other side.
So both sides get angry with the other.
Though so different it has similarities with how Brexit plays out.
Allowing women to choose how to control their own bodies absolutely is the right and progressive option.
There's a reason in the civilised world this isn't even debated anymore. America is descending into backwards theology and its quite sad to see.
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.
How long ago… the speed limit on the Westway was 40 (and it should be) for as long as I remember
As long as you remember? You stripling. It's was only 40mph for a short while, perhaps during the pandemic. For many years it was unknown (dual carriageway = 60mph I suppose) as there were no signs. There might have been a national speed limit sign. Then it went to 50mph IIRC.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Sadly, not so fast. When it comes to slavery, equality before the law, segregation and goodness knows what else it is reasonably clear which side is the progressive cause.
Abortion is very different for a number of reasons. There is nothing obviously progressive about killing the unborn, and nothing obviously progressive about denying women the right to choose.
Each side assembles a formidably strong but also fatally flawed case; neither side can acknowledge the weaknesses in their own or the strength of the other side.
So both sides get angry with the other.
Though so different it has similarities with how Brexit plays out.
Allowing women to choose how to control their own bodies absolutely is the right and progressive option.
There's a reason in the civilised world this isn't even debated anymore. America is descending into backwards theology and its quite sad to see.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Interestingly the crow laws look like they'll come up a bit in the final judgement. The pro abortion position is that stare decisis makes this an utterly final position, whereas the anti-abortion argument is that the Supreme Court has absolutely overturned their own decisions when they think the former position is clearly wrong, such as in the 60s for civil rights.
But isn't essence of the 'right to choose' position that this is a matter of fundamental principle that state rights cannot encroach upon?
Equating female autonomy with racial equality in this sense.
That's how I look at it, regardless of the legal technicals.
Ultimately there are 2 utterly contradictory rights involved, but I've no interest in getting in to a debate in which no minds are every changed. The point on legal technicalities is what this really comes down to as there's a clear majority on the Supreme Court to take a neutral position IF(underlined) they were free to do so. The debate is are they bound by the prior judgement or not.
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:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
Ha. Well it’s quite simple, the road out is blocked, and the wifi is still working - so either you start walking, or you stay in the pub with beer and wifi, and have a story to tell the grandkids….
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
And a realistic chance [indeed probability] that Brexit referendum would have been lost with Farage leading the Leave campaign.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
Farage enabled Brexit. That will be the historical verdict. Without his efforts no one would have cared. Not Boris, not Dave, not even Jezza.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
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:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
Ha. Well it’s quite simple, the road out is blocked, and the wifi is still working - so either you start walking, or you stay in the pub with beer and wifi, and have a story to tell the grandkids….
I have met people who would be screaming and whining non-stop. Probably would be demanding an RAF helicopter rescue after the first half hour.
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
And a realistic chance [indeed probability] that Brexit referendum would have been lost with Farage leading the Leave campaign.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
Farage enabled Brexit. That will be the historical verdict. Without his efforts no one would have cared. Not Boris, not Dave, not even Jezza.
And other people led the anti-slavery movement prior to 1860 in the USA, but history still remembers Lincoln which is the role Boris played in the Leave campaign and ultimately PM.
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.
Oxford Gardens was always a nice discount to Kensington though. But even that’s gone now
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
And a realistic chance [indeed probability] that Brexit referendum would have been lost with Farage leading the Leave campaign.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
Farage enabled Brexit. That will be the historical verdict. Without his efforts no one would have cared. Not Boris, not Dave, not even Jezza.
"Farage enabled Brexit" is damning with faint praise.
He's the most successful politician of his generation.
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:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
Ha. Well it’s quite simple, the road out is blocked, and the wifi is still working - so either you start walking, or you stay in the pub with beer and wifi, and have a story to tell the grandkids….
The starting point was after a concert so most people would be starting off happy and it goes from there.
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
And a realistic chance [indeed probability] that Brexit referendum would have been lost with Farage leading the Leave campaign.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
Farage enabled Brexit. That will be the historical verdict. Without his efforts no one would have cared. Not Boris, not Dave, not even Jezza.
"Farage enabled Brexit" is damning with faint praise.
He's the most successful politician of his generation.
Damning with faint praise? Huh?
I have said on several occasions he is (one of the) most successful politicians of our generations.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Interestingly the crow laws look like they'll come up a bit in the final judgement. The pro abortion position is that stare decisis makes this an utterly final position, whereas the anti-abortion argument is that the Supreme Court has absolutely overturned their own decisions when they think the former position is clearly wrong, such as in the 60s for civil rights.
Which would be for them in effect to argue that Rod v Wade, and Planned Parenthood v Casey are on a par with Plessy v Ferguson.
Since in confirmation hearings on a year or two back both Kavanaugh and Barrett indicated that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law, it would be a nakedly political rather than judicial act for them to vote to overturn.
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
And a realistic chance [indeed probability] that Brexit referendum would have been lost with Farage leading the Leave campaign.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
Farage enabled Brexit. That will be the historical verdict. Without his efforts no one would have cared. Not Boris, not Dave, not even Jezza.
"Farage enabled Brexit" is damning with faint praise.
He's the most successful politician of his generation.
Damning with faint praise? Huh?
I have said on several occasions he is (one of the) most successful politicians of our generations.
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.
Oxford Gardens was always a nice discount to Kensington though. But even that’s gone now
Yes all those roads south of Barlby Road were just about forgotten. And as you say no longer.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Interestingly the crow laws look like they'll come up a bit in the final judgement. The pro abortion position is that stare decisis makes this an utterly final position, whereas the anti-abortion argument is that the Supreme Court has absolutely overturned their own decisions when they think the former position is clearly wrong, such as in the 60s for civil rights.
Which would be for them in effect to argue that Rod v Wade, and Planned Parenthood v Casey are on a par with Plessy v Ferguson.
Since in confirmation hearings on a year or two back both Kavanaugh and Barrett indicated that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law, it would be a nakedly political rather than judicial act for them to vote to overturn.
Of course it's nakedly political, so were the original judgements. America would be much better off leaving politics to the politicians but that's not where they are.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
Anonymously? Sure* (even though the mods can easily ID me from my email address plus details disclosed here). I'm assuming the survey would be anonymous and completed either on paper or online. Not face to face with mum and dad/friends/teacher present? Obviously big problems if the latter. When at school we took part in one of the big ONS/government surveys, definitely asked about drugs, can't remember if it asked about sex. There was no compulsion to answer any of the questions.
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking.
*What would you like to know? Vaginal sex (not my vagina) - yes. Anal sex - no. Drugs - alcohol frequently, canabis and tobacco a few times well over a decade ago. Not sure what other questions are asked.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
Anonymously? Sure* (even though the mods can easily ID me from my email address plus details disclosed here). I'm assuming the survey would be anonymous and completed either on paper or online. Not face to face with mum and dad/friends/teacher present? Obviously big problems if the latter. When at school we took part in one of the big ONS/government surveys, definitely asked about drugs, can't remember if it asked about sex. There was no compulsion to answer any of the questions.
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking.
*What would you like to know? Vaginal sex (not my vagina) - yes. Anal sex - no. Drugs - alcohol frequently, canabis and tobacco a few times well over a decade ago. Not sure what other questions are asked.
Another disapprover of Anal Sex! - Call the Thought Police!
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.
How long ago… the speed limit on the Westway was 40 (and it should be) for as long as I remember
As long as you remember? You stripling. It's was only 40mph for a short while, perhaps during the pandemic. For many years it was unknown (dual carriageway = 60mph I suppose) as there were no signs. There might have been a national speed limit sign. Then it went to 50mph IIRC.
It is now 30mph.
Dual carriageway 70 unless otherwise specified I think? All that vroom vroom you missed!
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
Anonymously? Sure* (even though the mods can easily ID me from my email address plus details disclosed here). I'm assuming the survey would be anonymous and completed either on paper or online. Not face to face with mum and dad/friends/teacher present? Obviously big problems if the latter. When at school we took part in one of the big ONS/government surveys, definitely asked about drugs, can't remember if it asked about sex. There was no compulsion to answer any of the questions.
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking.
*What would you like to know? Vaginal sex (not my vagina) - yes. Anal sex - no. Drugs - alcohol frequently, canabis and tobacco a few times well over a decade ago. Not sure what other questions are asked.
Another disapprover of Anal Sex! - Call the Thought Police!
I'm answering on experiences so far (although, even though I know it's best not to knock something until you've tried it, I must say it doesn't appeal personally). So, arrest me
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!
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.
You are being naive. Men are already abusing self-ID. See what's happened in the Girl Guides or in the rape crisis centre in Scotland. Or the rape therapy group in Brighton. Or in California jails for women. Or in womens' prisons here.
And real harm is happening now to real women. The women raped by men claiming to be trans - in prison and out of it. The rape victims denied therapy because they did not want a man present. The rape victims told by the Head of the Scottish rape crisis Centre that they were bigots for not wanting men around etc. The girls refusing to use unisex toilets in school because they do not want boys around when they are menstruating.
I don't think you have a clue as to how real the fear is when womens boundaries are breached by men. Nor why we are suspicious about men who demand entry into our spaces as of right rather than with our permission. Why should we trust someone who aggressively demands and insists rather than politely ask and back off if refused?
Don't think I'm being naive. I've never said there are no instances of men faking trans for nefarious purposes. Nor instances of 'transphobia' being wrongly alleged in order to squash valid concerns.
What I'm suggesting is we have a quicker easier process to legally change gender. We treat the people who make the change as being of the gender they have transitioned to. We make exceptions to this if there are solid genuine reasons to do so. Eg (for me) elite sports and prisons spring to mind, but that would be a debate to be had.
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.
How long ago… the speed limit on the Westway was 40 (and it should be) for as long as I remember
As long as you remember? You stripling. It's was only 40mph for a short while, perhaps during the pandemic. For many years it was unknown (dual carriageway = 60mph I suppose) as there were no signs. There might have been a national speed limit sign. Then it went to 50mph IIRC.
It is now 30mph.
Dual carriageway 70 unless otherwise specified I think? All that vroom vroom you missed!
I tried always to keep it around 70 simply for the thrill of driving at 70 in Central London.
It became average speed check some time ago after they introduced the 50mph (without any fanfare and I think for the first few months it was the highest grossing traffic revenue in the UK) so not possible.
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.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Interestingly the crow laws look like they'll come up a bit in the final judgement. The pro abortion position is that stare decisis makes this an utterly final position, whereas the anti-abortion argument is that the Supreme Court has absolutely overturned their own decisions when they think the former position is clearly wrong, such as in the 60s for civil rights.
Which would be for them in effect to argue that Rod v Wade, and Planned Parenthood v Casey are on a par with Plessy v Ferguson.
Since in confirmation hearings on a year or two back both Kavanaugh and Barrett indicated that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law, it would be a nakedly political rather than judicial act for them to vote to overturn.
Of course it's nakedly political, so were the original judgements. America would be much better off leaving politics to the politicians but that's not where they are.
I disagree about the original judgments. Roe was not particularly a matter of party political strife, and abortion didn't become a massive religious issue until quite some time afterwards. Planned Parenthood was an explicit attempt to retain some consensus across the divide.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Prediction for the Old Bexley & Sidcup by-election:
Con 44% Lab 28% RefUK 20% LD 5% Green 2% Others 1%
Turnout 38%
That feels about right to me, though I would probably put the LDs down at closer to 2-3%, Green maybe a bit higher, and REFUK not quite at 20%.
Some telling facts in the Britain Elects previous which say a lot about which way you'd expect this one to go:
- two are in the top 10 wards in London for owner-occupation - two are in the top 10 wards in London for population born in the UK - two are in the top 10 wards in London for White British ethnicity.
In other words it is a very non-London like constituency that happens to have been plonked down on the edge of London.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
Anonymously? Sure* (even though the mods can easily ID me from my email address plus details disclosed here). I'm assuming the survey would be anonymous and completed either on paper or online. Not face to face with mum and dad/friends/teacher present? Obviously big problems if the latter. When at school we took part in one of the big ONS/government surveys, definitely asked about drugs, can't remember if it asked about sex. There was no compulsion to answer any of the questions.
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking....
Absolutely. In a similar way, there is a real paucity of detailed or reliable statistics around transgender issues.
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.
Not at all. You are too caught up in the moment so of course you think Boris Boris Boris. You are, for obvious reasons, the frog in the well.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
2016-2019 involved a bit more than just huffing and puffing. There was a realistic chance that Brexit wouldn’t have happened at all with another PM.
And a realistic chance [indeed probability] that Brexit referendum would have been lost with Farage leading the Leave campaign.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
Farage enabled Brexit. That will be the historical verdict. Without his efforts no one would have cared. Not Boris, not Dave, not even Jezza.
And other people led the anti-slavery movement prior to 1860 in the USA, but history still remembers Lincoln which is the role Boris played in the Leave campaign and ultimately PM.
"Eric Zemmour has one undeniable quality. He is true to himself. He detests 2021. He wants to go forward to the past — frequently a past of his own imagination.
The far-Right French pundit and essayist finally launched his presidential election campaign yesterday with a bizarre YouTube video which lasted for ten minutes and 11 seconds.
His chosen channel of communication was pure 2021. His method of delivery was that of the early to mid-20th century. He sat at a polished desk with a 1930s’ radio microphone in front of him and leather-bound books behind him. He read from a script in a funereal voice to the sound of Beethoven’s seventh symphony. He wore an undertaker’s outfit of black suit, white shirt and black tie. In ten minutes, he looked into the camera, briefly, on only three occasions."
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
Anonymously? Sure* (even though the mods can easily ID me from my email address plus details disclosed here). I'm assuming the survey would be anonymous and completed either on paper or online. Not face to face with mum and dad/friends/teacher present? Obviously big problems if the latter. When at school we took part in one of the big ONS/government surveys, definitely asked about drugs, can't remember if it asked about sex. There was no compulsion to answer any of the questions.
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking....
Absolutely. In a similar way, there is a real paucity of detailed or reliable statistics around transgender issues.
Yep. Re the original questions, one of my concerns would be around the reliability of the data - when we did a similar survey at school a lot of people claimed to have ticked yes to all the drugs listed (whether they actually did, I don't know) simply to freak out the establishment. But there's not an obvious better way.
On transgender issues, one consequence of the GRA is that it's very hard to link records for the same person under different genders (GRA is supposed to prevent disclosure of previously having a different gender). So in e.g. routine medical data, it's very hard to put together a transgender cohort to compare to the general population.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
Presumably the swings will be irrelevant if the Tories hold unlike when Labour does it and it means something?
Swings against a government in midterm byelections are utterly irrelevant, yes.
Swings against an Opposition in midterm byelections are almost unheard of, and probably are significant.
Its dog bites man, versus man bites dog.
Size matters.
There's a difference between the 40% swings required to win these by-elections and a 20% swing that wouldn't.
In general the average by-election swing has predictive power for the general election that follows - though there is swingback.
Labour needs a huge swing at the next general election of about 15% (to the nearest 5%) to scrape a majority. So you would expect that they would have to average a by-election swing markedly greater than that to be on course.
The Tory --> Labour by-election swings in this Parliament thus far are: Hartlepool -16.0 Airdrie and Shotts +5.6 Chesham and Amersham +4.4 Batley and Spen -2.9 Average -2.2
Labour require some very large by-election swings in their favour, for the by-election swings to indicate a reduction in the Tory majority at the next election. At the moment they would indicate an increased Tory majority.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
Anonymously? Sure* (even though the mods can easily ID me from my email address plus details disclosed here). I'm assuming the survey would be anonymous and completed either on paper or online. Not face to face with mum and dad/friends/teacher present? Obviously big problems if the latter. When at school we took part in one of the big ONS/government surveys, definitely asked about drugs, can't remember if it asked about sex. There was no compulsion to answer any of the questions.
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking....
Absolutely. In a similar way, there is a real paucity of detailed or reliable statistics around transgender issues.
Yep. Re the original questions, one of my concerns would be around the reliability of the data - when we did a similar survey at school a lot of people claimed to have ticked yes to all the drugs listed (whether they actually did, I don't know) simply to freak out the establishment. But there's not an obvious better way.
On transgender issues, one consequence of the GRA is that it's very hard to link records for the same person under different genders (GRA is supposed to prevent disclosure of previously having a different gender). So in e.g. routine medical data, it's very hard to put together a transgender cohort to compare to the general population.
That point in your second para is a very interesting one. And a highly constructive comment btw.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
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:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Yes you have made that point clear enough in the past.
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?
The problem is that the male perverts, when caught in the women’s toilets, will say that they are trans women and that anyone questioning them is transphobic and committing offences under the Gender Recognition Act.
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
What legislation are you talking about?
Legally changing gender doesn't make it easier for a man to access a female toilet. So what's the link between the legal gender change process and a man accessing a female toilet?
There isn't one unless toilets are policed for gender via a certificate. If they were, yes, a man could be motivated to change gender, get the cert, and show it to gain access.
But they aren't. Nor are they policed for physical genital sex.
Unless you're proposing these things - which you surely aren't - I don't see where you're going with the comment.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
It’s hard to change the Union.
But Cameron’s mistake was to think he could do it to fit into his own, self-imposed electoral timeframe.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Yes you have made that point clear enough in the past.
You're just another Kool-aid overdose.
A frequent occurrence up here.
Accusing someone of cultish devotion because they [checks notes] switch their vote? That's very on brand for a basket case like you.
Your an SNP Type.
Nothing is going to swing your vote. If I'm a basket case - You're a retard.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
It’s hard to change the Union.
But Cameron’s mistake was to think he could do it to fit into his own, self-imposed electoral timeframe.
That's a fair point, though its worth remembering that Cameron had given himself until the end of 2017 in order to hold the referendum. So negotiations could have happened for much of that time.
Instead the negotiations were blitzed and over and done with in no time, because no negotiations happened. Had Cameron played harder ball, rejected the initial proposals, said to Merkel "I will have to recommend Leave unless there's serious movement" then who knows where we'd be now?
But he didn't. He fluffed it, and it meant serious reform was never going to happen. If we'd backed Remain in 2016 that would be it, we'd never get safeguards protecting us from Eurozone QMV or anything else that mattered.
This is starting to look like a pretty credible explanation.
Interesting, though depressing, to find it becoming (really: always was part of) a swarm of various zoonoses some of which will come back and bite us in the future no doubt. Like flu, HIV, etc. etc., so why should I be surprised?
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
Comments
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
In Federations, over time power accumulates in the centre and the EU hasn't been shy to take its opportunities to take power. Once that happens, it becomes hard to reverse short of leaving the federation.
Even if its a mess, even if its difficult, the nation of federations is to either centralise or disband in general. I expect the EU to continue evolving into a federal state like the USA or Australia etc have done before it.
It may be messy, but hopefully not as messy as middle of the nineteenth century America was. England will evolve differently and over time it will just be considered normal and not debatable as to why England is not a part of federal Europe.
And real harm is happening now to real women. The women raped by men claiming to be trans - in prison and out of it. The rape victims denied therapy because they did not want a man present. The rape victims told by the Head of the Scottish rape crisis Centre that they were bigots for not wanting men around etc. The girls refusing to use unisex toilets in school because they do not want boys around when they are menstruating.
I don't think you have a clue as to how real the fear is when womens boundaries are breached by men. Nor why we are suspicious about men who demand entry into our spaces as of right rather than with our permission. Why should we trust someone who aggressively demands and insists rather than politely ask and back off if refused?
Their duck shepherd's pie was good also.
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Very low turnout especially at Bexley.
Boris responded to that situation like Captain Kirk though.
He managed to get Article 16 added into the Protocol which appeared to be a seemingly innocuous addition to the routines, but has then been able to be exploited to create a winning scenario.
In the 20-50yr context of Brexit, begun by The Referendum Party, Alan Sked, James Goldsmith, Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit. UKIP was arguably the most successful pressure group in our times and it forced David Cameron to grant a referendum on EU membership. And then many forces came into play of which Boris, Gove, Farage were separate parts.
And then the country voted Leave and after some huffing and puffing we left. If it hadn't been Boris in charge it would have been Gove. Or Raab. Or someone else.
You are too focused on Boris because he is ful(filling) your vision of a great hero because he delivered your desired outcome. In a broader historical context, he was not an eighth as important.
@MGallacherMSP
·
39m
Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
https://twitter.com/MGallacherMSP/status/1466393610224558080?s=20
Swings against an Opposition in midterm byelections are almost unheard of, and probably are significant.
Its dog bites man, versus man bites dog.
Abortion is very different for a number of reasons. There is nothing obviously progressive about killing the unborn, and nothing obviously progressive about denying women the right to choose.
Each side assembles a formidably strong but also fatally flawed case; neither side can acknowledge the weaknesses in their own or the strength of the other side.
So both sides get angry with the other.
Though so different it has similarities with how Brexit plays out.
Equating female autonomy with racial equality in this sense.
That's how I look at it, regardless of the legal technicals.
Farage deserves his place in the footnotes of history, like Sked etc do too but history tends to remember the PMs for a reason and Boris is like Churchill in both having been PM and having advocated for what he became PM for prior to becoming PM.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for gauging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
There's a reason in the civilised world this isn't even debated anymore. America is descending into backwards theology and its quite sad to see.
It is now 30mph.
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
He's the most successful politician of his generation.
I have said on several occasions he is (one of the) most successful politicians of our generations.
Since in confirmation hearings on a year or two back both Kavanaugh and Barrett indicated that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law, it would be a nakedly political rather than judicial act for them to vote to overturn.
He was the Policy Entrepreneur
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking.
*What would you like to know? Vaginal sex (not my vagina) - yes. Anal sex - no. Drugs - alcohol frequently, canabis and tobacco a few times well over a decade ago. Not sure what other questions are asked.
Gaining seats isnt something SKS has managed so far.
Con 44%
Lab 28%
RefUK 20%
LD 5%
Green 2%
Others 1%
Turnout 38%
Lab 30
RefUK 10
Green 3
LD 2
Others 5
What I'm suggesting is we have a quicker easier process to legally change gender. We treat the people who make the change as being of the gender they have transitioned to. We make exceptions to this if there are solid genuine reasons to do so. Eg (for me) elite sports and prisons spring to mind, but that would be a debate to be had.
What's wrong with that?
Ciotti and Pecresse through to the runoff
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1466404166566350859?s=20
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/1466410262169374720?s=20
I have added the GE 2019 % in brackets
It became average speed check some time ago after they introduced the 50mph (without any fanfare and I think for the first few months it was the highest grossing traffic revenue in the UK) so not possible.
Roe was not particularly a matter of party political strife, and abortion didn't become a massive religious issue until quite some time afterwards. Planned Parenthood was an explicit attempt to retain some consensus across the divide.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Some telling facts in the Britain Elects previous which say a lot about which way you'd expect this one to go:
- two are in the top 10 wards in London for owner-occupation
- two are in the top 10 wards in London for population born in the UK
- two are in the top 10 wards in London for White British ethnicity.
In other words it is a very non-London like constituency that happens to have been plonked down on the edge of London.
In a similar way, there is a real paucity of detailed or reliable statistics around transgender issues.
The far-Right French pundit and essayist finally launched his presidential election campaign yesterday with a bizarre YouTube video which lasted for ten minutes and 11 seconds.
His chosen channel of communication was pure 2021. His method of delivery was that of the early to mid-20th century. He sat at a polished desk with a 1930s’ radio microphone in front of him and leather-bound books behind him. He read from a script in a funereal voice to the sound of Beethoven’s seventh symphony. He wore an undertaker’s outfit of black suit, white shirt and black tie. In ten minutes, he looked into the camera, briefly, on only three occasions."
https://unherd.com/2021/12/the-world-according-to-eric-zemmour/
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Can't we talk about Brexit?
On transgender issues, one consequence of the GRA is that it's very hard to link records for the same person under different genders (GRA is supposed to prevent disclosure of previously having a different gender). So in e.g. routine medical data, it's very hard to put together a transgender cohort to compare to the general population.
There's a difference between the 40% swings required to win these by-elections and a 20% swing that wouldn't.
In general the average by-election swing has predictive power for the general election that follows - though there is swingback.
Labour needs a huge swing at the next general election of about 15% (to the nearest 5%) to scrape a majority. So you would expect that they would have to average a by-election swing markedly greater than that to be on course.
The Tory --> Labour by-election swings in this Parliament thus far are:
Hartlepool -16.0
Airdrie and Shotts +5.6
Chesham and Amersham +4.4
Batley and Spen -2.9
Average -2.2
Labour require some very large by-election swings in their favour, for the by-election swings to indicate a reduction in the Tory majority at the next election. At the moment they would indicate an increased Tory majority.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
You're just another Kool-aid overdose.
A frequent occurrence up here.
Legally changing gender doesn't make it easier for a man to access a female toilet. So what's the link between the legal gender change process and a man accessing a female toilet?
There isn't one unless toilets are policed for gender via a certificate. If they were, yes, a man could be motivated to change gender, get the cert, and show it to gain access.
But they aren't. Nor are they policed for physical genital sex.
Unless you're proposing these things - which you surely aren't - I don't see where you're going with the comment.
Full name Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/opinion/supreme-court-abortion-mississippi-law.html
She thinks major change is on the way via SCOTUS.
But Cameron’s mistake was to think he could do it to fit into his own, self-imposed electoral timeframe.
https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1466409991041130499
This is starting to look like a pretty credible explanation.
Nothing is going to swing your vote. If I'm a basket case - You're a retard.
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Yes ~ 52% (+5)
No ~ 43% (-4)
Don't Know ~ 4% (-2)
Excluding DK
Yes ~ 55% (+5 / +10)
No ~ 45% (-5 / -10) https://t.co/7mWCL0FlSE
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1466026106746814469?t=X_8hILEpGmcpBQA9GePEBw&s=19
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
@DPJHodges
·
27m
You don’t need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the concept of state mandated vaccines.
Instead the negotiations were blitzed and over and done with in no time, because no negotiations happened. Had Cameron played harder ball, rejected the initial proposals, said to Merkel "I will have to recommend Leave unless there's serious movement" then who knows where we'd be now?
But he didn't. He fluffed it, and it meant serious reform was never going to happen. If we'd backed Remain in 2016 that would be it, we'd never get safeguards protecting us from Eurozone QMV or anything else that mattered.
Ban antivaxxers from every shop and business and also stop them meeting other people.
Will allow everyone properly vaccinated to live normal lives.
Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.