Eric Ciotti, on the conservative right of Les Republicains, wins the first round of the party's primary to choose its candidate for the 2022 presidential election. He will face the moderate Valeire Pecresse in the runoff, having also knocked out Barnier and Bertrand.
Ciotti has already said he would endorse Zemmour in the runoff if he did not get through and Zemmour did and would be a clear shift to the right by Les Republicains if he does get the nomination to take on Macron
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);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
Yup, disliking Boris is a pretty mainstream activity in these parts and I live in a Conservative seat.
Intderesting. To win in the UK the Tories need Mr J. Yet in Scotland ...
The Tories will never win in Scotland anyway, it is Labour who needs support from Scottish SNP MPs to make Starmer PM and only then would there be any prospect of indyref2 being allowed
Yet in 1992 no Tory majority without the 12 seats the Tories won and in 2017 it was the Scottish seats that helped the Tories stay in power.
Scotland turns out is very important.
Actually in 1992 the Conservatives won a majority of 104 in England and in 2017 even Theresa May got a majority of 60 in England and had there been no Scottish seats she would have won a majority in England, Wales and NI alone without needing the DUP
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 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.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
I think what's needed here is data. Sorry for not taking your word for it.
Small orange diamondOnly vaccinated and recovered people can enter non-essential shops, cultural and leisure centres Small orange diamondUnvaccinated can only meet two people from another household Small orange diamond German Parliament to discuss a vaccine mandate - from February 2022 https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1466412928404439048?s=20
Far too authoritarian measures.
Yikes. Misread this strange transliteration of the tweet to mean that the unvaccinated had to wear small orange diamonds and could only meet two people from another household.
Yep, me too! I thought, "surely not", then realised it was just the replacement text for the bullet point images.
The BBC's Health Correspondent seems to think Omicron will find it harder to spread in the UK because "there is plenty of Delta circulating". In South Africa it " did not have to work hard to compete" because infection levels were low when it took hold.
God help us if this is the level of science journalism at the BBC now.
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?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.
Not the case with the EU.
The Member States vote for parties who want to be in the EU. So perfectly democratic. Those Member States who don't want to be in the EU vote for parties who want to leave. Also perfectly democratic.
It is exactly the same. Can you change the laws that were decided by the cabinet and voted for in parliament on mask wearing? I don't believe you can. But it is still a democratic process.
Welcome to the club. How specific are you? The origin is from Devizes way, and other great stories include someone going from his rural village into Devizes in order to better see an eclipse...
Its also a classic tale of the underdog. Looks like its mocking the thick locals, raking for the cheese, that is of course the reflection of the moon, when in reality the locals are quicker witted than the revenue...
I lived in Devizes for a couple of years just over ten years ago. I live about fifteen miles from there now, but was there last week for my booster. I knew there was a pub in Swindon called the Moonrakers, but had no idea it was a name for Wiltshire folk.
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
I've got to say Cyclefree going full blown TERF is a change in style I am very happy to see.
I am not a TERF, an offensive description used to shut down women, much like all the other boo-words used to try and shut up women with a mind and opinions of their own. I am well used to this having worked in a male City environment for nearly 4 decades. It does not bother me in the slightest. I am a feminist who is not going to allow men ( or women, come to that) to trample over rights women have had to fight hard for and which are always at risk, as we see in the US now.
The views I have expressed have been strongly influenced by a friend of mine who is transitioning to being a woman and who loathes - and has publicly stated her disagreement with - the stance taken by the voluble trans activists and organisations like Stonewall. She has taught me a lot about this issue.
Something lost in translation here I assume? Or a weird use of up to perhaps. 60/120 at a single event sounds implausible.
Not necessarily. Super spreading events have happened. There was a bloke who came back from his holidays (I think in Staffordshire) and went down the boozer a couple of nights when he got back, they had an outdoor area which was rammed and despite that I think something like 200 people got infected over the 2 nights.
On the 8th day of Christmas PB gave to me 8 variants spreading, 7 unnecessary headlines, 6 conspiracy theories, 5 contradictory public briefs, 3 wise experts panicking, 2 politicians spinning, and iSage up a pear tree.
1) Nothing ever tops the American Centurion charge card I had, you couldn't apply for that, you had to be selected. It was dropped off by a courier in a lovely leather box
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
I've just found out that Wiltshire is in the West Country. News to me. Always thought that was just Devon and Cornwall, or - at a stretch - Somerset and Dorset. Isn't Wiltshire in the Midlands?
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.
A woman's right to choose whether she carries the unborn child inside her to term and motherhood - subject to limits regarding late termination - has been established for a generation or more. It's absolutely fundamental to the principle of equal worth of the sexes. The attempt to overturn it is not a matter of 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that' or 'both sides have a point but are too wound up to debate it sensibly'. There are plenty of issues like that but this isn't one of them.
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 link is this: to get a GRC now you have to take active steps to live as the sex you want to be. So a transwoman would have to live, act, dress like a woman. If she uses the ladies' loo she will appear to be a woman and will be most unlikely to want to attack other women.
If those requirements are removed as the self-ID crowd want, there is no requirement at all - no medical diagnosis, no need to dress like a woman or act like one at all. Nothing. So a male predator can simply walk into a woman's space, cannot be challenged or ejected because he will say that he is / identifies as a woman and is free to attack or expose himself or masturbate in front of women or be voyeuristic etc. Self-ID provides a charter for sexual predators to get into womens spaces more easily, without the risk of challenge. And if convicted they can then demand to be put into a woman's prison where they have a captive female population to hand.
Self-ID removes existing safeguards for women and girls and provides easier opportunities for predators.
I get that you want it in order to make things easier for genuine trans people. But it will become a predators charter. Any removal of safeguards or taking people on trust because of who they are or what they say they are inevitably results in this. Evidence: priests, sports coaches, any of the very many groups and organisations listed in the IICSA inquiry.
If we really want to make things easier for those with dysphoria we should be making the resources available so that they don't have to wait years even to get an appointment to see a specialist. Abandoning safeguards is not the right response to unconscionable delays.
The prisons point, I get. A male sex offender who then claims to be a woman to try and get their time served in a women's prison. Totally see the issue there. On elite sports I do too.
But on the general point I really don't. Or at least not to anything like the extent that you do.
Eg a male sexual predator can masquerade as female in order to try and enter (most) female spaces. They can do that now. They don't need to have legally changed gender to do it. Legally changing gender doesn't even make it easier since most places are not policed for it.
So I don't see why it being easier to make that legal change should lead to a surge in predatory heterosexual men doing it for abusive or sinister reasons. What would the motive be? What would they gain over and above just masquerading and NOT making the legal change? I don't see the logic.
It's a massive step for a man to legally become a woman - and vice versa - and I think it's a correct and safe assumption that the vast majority of those doing it will be doing it for profound and genuine reasons. And, ok, some won't be. Therefore legislate for exceptions - eg sex offenders in prisons, elite female sport - where birth sex should be the determinant.
Bottom line, I don't see how making the legal gender change process easier maps to a Predators Charter or anything close to it. I truly don't.
You are missing the point. If self-ID becomes a legal reality, it makes it impossible to challenge a male predator. They will say "I'm a woman" and there is nothing you can say or do to gainsay that. So a predator can demand to enter a domestic violence refuge and can't be kept out. Don't you see that the sort of man who beats up women will use that?
Or take a man who gets off on hearing women describe their sexual assault. They can insist on joining a rape trauma group. And so on.
Self-ID provides a bloody enormous loophole. That will be used by those with evil intent. There are more of them about than you seem to think. And where something close to self-ID has been permitted instances of predators abusing this have happened.
But changing rooms are not policed for legal gender. So how does it become harder to eject such a person if the process for changing legal gender were to be made easier?
I can't see how it does. Can't see the logical link. This is the point I'm making.
I've just found out that Wiltshire is in the West Country. News to me. Always thought that was just Devon and Cornwall, or - at a stretch - Somerset and Dorset. Isn't Wiltshire in the Midlands?
We've always been the West Country (Wilts, Dorset, Somerset). D and C are the Far West, or just the West. At Swindon the most idiotic of songs "West Country, La La La..." rings out round the terraces.
In the 1990's ITV Central region used to include Swindon as part of their area, which was good as Town played live on TV many times. Oddly BBC South Today seems to count Swindon as part of their area. Certainly if something juicy happens, like a murder.
1) Nothing ever tops the American Centurion charge card I had, you couldn't apply for that, you had to be selected. It was dropped off by a courier in a lovely leather box
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
Are the benefits still worth the old American Express black card? I dated a girl for a while when I was at uni who had one, and I remember the benefits on travel and restaurants where the big tangible perks.
But changing rooms are not policed for legal gender. So how does it become harder to eject such a person if the process for changing legal gender were to be made easier?
I can't see how it does. Can't see the logical link. This is the point I'm making.
I thought because if they were legally a woman they couldn’t be chucked out, whereas if they were a man they would be, if someone complained
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.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
I think what's needed here is data. Sorry for not taking your word for it.
Another thing to note re wages and employment is that our (and I know other similar companies are the same) normal staff turnover in a year is around 10%, this year it has been well over 50%. All this is because they have been offered significantly more money somewhere else, which then leads to us increasing wages.
Something lost in translation here I assume? Or a weird use of up to perhaps. 60/120 at a single event sounds implausible.
Not necessarily. Super spreading events have happened. There was a bloke who came back from his holidays (I think in Staffordshire) and went down the boozer a couple of nights when he got back, they had an outdoor area which was rammed and despite that I think something like 200 people got infected over the 2 nights.
1) Nothing ever tops the American Centurion charge card I had, you couldn't apply for that, you had to be selected. It was dropped off by a courier in a lovely leather box
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
2 - while true - Revolut is literally the only visa card I now own and it's useful for allowing me to transfer currency at opportune times rather than on demand.
You also need to ask yourself why when I'm told about something incredibly tacky did I instantly think of you.
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.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
I think what's needed here is data. Sorry for not taking your word for it.
Another thing to note re wages and employment is that our (and I know other similar companies are the same) normal staff turnover in a year is around 10%, this year it has been well over 50%. All this is because they have been offered significantly more money somewhere else, which then leads to us increasing wages.
Haven’t Uber drivers left because the pay for delivery drivers has rocketed? That’s more of a Covid effect than Brexit though I suppose
Something lost in translation here I assume? Or a weird use of up to perhaps. 60/120 at a single event sounds implausible.
Not necessarily. Super spreading events have happened. There was a bloke who came back from his holidays (I think in Staffordshire) and went down the boozer a couple of nights when he got back, they had an outdoor area which was rammed and despite that I think something like 200 people got infected over the 2 nights.
Todays official press release has 1 case confirmed from that event. Let's wait and see.
It isn't debated that a) an individual at the party had omicron and b) 50+ people have tested positive. They just haven't sequenced all the tests to work if they are definitely omicron.
1) Nothing ever tops the American Centurion charge card I had, you couldn't apply for that, you had to be selected. It was dropped off by a courier in a lovely leather box
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
Are the benefits still worth the old American Express black card? I dated a girl for a while when I was at uni who had one, and I remember the benefits on travel and restaurants where the big tangible perks.
Only if you use them, the annual fee is over £2,000 and the joining fee was a bit more but if you use it moderately then it is a bargain and utterly worth it if you use it a lot.
I remember ringing up AMEX concierge and saying I need to get into this exclusive restaurant but they are sold out for the next three months, about 10 minutes later they came back with a plethora of available dates for the restaurant in the next fortnight.
I've just found out that Wiltshire is in the West Country. News to me. Always thought that was just Devon and Cornwall, or - at a stretch - Somerset and Dorset. Isn't Wiltshire in the Midlands?
You just need to hear the locals discuss their weekend plans; "Oim goin up Brizzle"
Something lost in translation here I assume? Or a weird use of up to perhaps. 60/120 at a single event sounds implausible.
Not necessarily. Super spreading events have happened. There was a bloke who came back from his holidays (I think in Staffordshire) and went down the boozer a couple of nights when he got back, they had an outdoor area which was rammed and despite that I think something like 200 people got infected over the 2 nights.
1) Nothing ever tops the American Centurion charge card I had, you couldn't apply for that, you had to be selected. It was dropped off by a courier in a lovely leather box
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
2 - while true - Revolut is literally the only visa card I now own and it's useful for allowing me to transfer currency at opportune times rather than on demand.
You also need to ask yourself why when I'm told about something incredibly tacky did I instantly think of you.
Because you believe all the fake news about me.
Honestly, I wore red shoes one time and people draw all the wrong conclusions.
That's why I've bought new footwear for the PB meet in February.
I've just found out that Wiltshire is in the West Country. News to me. Always thought that was just Devon and Cornwall, or - at a stretch - Somerset and Dorset. Isn't Wiltshire in the Midlands?
1) Nothing ever tops the American Centurion charge card I had, you couldn't apply for that, you had to be selected. It was dropped off by a courier in a lovely leather box
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
Are the benefits still worth the old American Express black card? I dated a girl for a while when I was at uni who had one, and I remember the benefits on travel and restaurants where the big tangible perks.
In the States it's definitely the case, JP Morgan Chase have just bought a Saas Restaurant booking firm to attract a particular class of customer.
Patrick McKenzie (who works for Stripe) is currently doing a newsletter regarding finance and it's variations around the world. It's well worth subscribing if it's of interest. https://bam.kalzumeus.com/
Something lost in translation here I assume? Or a weird use of up to perhaps. 60/120 at a single event sounds implausible.
Not necessarily. Super spreading events have happened. There was a bloke who came back from his holidays (I think in Staffordshire) and went down the boozer a couple of nights when he got back, they had an outdoor area which was rammed and despite that I think something like 200 people got infected over the 2 nights.
At the party where I caught Covid several people caught it, all from one person who was double vaxed and had tested negative prior to attending. Everyone who got it was double vaccinated I think. Everyone was pretty sick although nobody was hospitalised and we're all still alive. Vaccination doesn't seem to offer much protection against infection or mild (but still quite debilitating, week off work) symptoms.
One of the UK cases seems to have flown in from SA, visited KFC, and then flown out.
Who the hell are these people ?
It could have been for the rugby. I doubt many flew from SA just for one weekend of rugby, but there is always a few with lots of money who make such trips.
Nobody honestly believes that Johnson is going to down in history as a great PM, do they
Boris himself .... and possibly HYUFD.
Personally, I think 'as a great PM' is a bit of a stretch. But I think that, as a rule, history judges those panned at the time more kindly, and those lauded at the time, less kindly.
Tell that to James Buchanan. Who is arguably a better comparator for Johnson than the earlier absurd suggestion of Lincoln.
Something lost in translation here I assume? Or a weird use of up to perhaps. 60/120 at a single event sounds implausible.
Not necessarily. Super spreading events have happened. There was a bloke who came back from his holidays (I think in Staffordshire) and went down the boozer a couple of nights when he got back, they had an outdoor area which was rammed and despite that I think something like 200 people got infected over the 2 nights.
At the party where I caught Covid several people caught it, all from one person who was double vaxed and had tested negative prior to attending. Everyone who got it was double vaccinated I think. Everyone was pretty sick although nobody was hospitalised and we're all still alive. Vaccination doesn't seem to offer much protection against infection or mild (but still quite debilitating, week off work) symptoms.
I don't think thats totally correct. There is a clear effect on transmission - its what has turned a virus with an R0 of around 6 (delta) in to something where the effective R is around 1 in the UK. This doesn't mean that people who are double jabbed cannot catch it, and there will be cases like yours. Its possible you encountered someone shedding a lot of virus,.
54k cases. Up quite a bit on last week. I think Omicron is much more widely prevalent than we thought. Now we just have to see how that plays out in hospitalisations and deaths. Both still going down.
One of the UK cases seems to have flown in from SA, visited KFC, and then flown out.
Who the hell are these people ?
It could have been for the rugby. I doubt many flew from SA just for one weekend of rugby, but there is always a few with lots of money who make such trips.
Sounds like one of my trips around Europe following LFC.
I think the 2018 final in Kyiv was 'fun', no bloody hotels available, not even AMEX could source me a room, so I ended up pretty much having a trip like The Terminal.
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
I've got to say Cyclefree going full blown TERF is a change in style I am very happy to see.
I am not a TERF, an offensive description used to shut down women, much like all the other boo-words used to try and shut up women with a mind and opinions of their own. I am well used to this having worked in a male City environment for nearly 4 decades. It does not bother me in the slightest. I am a feminist who is not going to allow men ( or women, come to that) to trample over rights women have had to fight hard for and which are always at risk, as we see in the US now.
The views I have expressed have been strongly influenced by a friend of mine who is transitioning to being a woman and who loathes - and has publicly stated her disagreement with - the stance taken by the voluble trans activists and organisations like Stonewall. She has taught me a lot about this issue.
My pet hate on here is the use of the phrase 'fanboi' to shut down any engagement with the points being made. And it comes from the top.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m You don’t need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the concept of state mandated vaccines.
The German approach is the one we should follow.
Ban antivaxxers from every shop and business and also stop them meeting other people.
Will allow everyone properly vaccinated to live normal lives.
Providing that such requirements only affect those unvaccinated, rather than imposing significant requirements on both the vaccinated population and millions of small businesses.
It takes me all of five seconds to show my vaccination status on my iPhone.
And takes the business you’re frequenting all of at least two people (plus any extra security required) on the door checking, assuming that whatever you’re showing on your phone has no implications in terms of privacy or data security.
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.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
I think what's needed here is data. Sorry for not taking your word for it.
Another thing to note re wages and employment is that our (and I know other similar companies are the same) normal staff turnover in a year is around 10%, this year it has been well over 50%. All this is because they have been offered significantly more money somewhere else, which then leads to us increasing wages.
There are few permanent employees in year-round-PAYE sense in smaller scale construction. The staff don't want to do it. So They move very rapidly - end of one project etc.
The company I am associated with has kept some guys for years. This year the rates are going up....
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
I've got to say Cyclefree going full blown TERF is a change in style I am very happy to see.
I am not a TERF, an offensive description used to shut down women, much like all the other boo-words used to try and shut up women with a mind and opinions of their own. I am well used to this having worked in a male City environment for nearly 4 decades. It does not bother me in the slightest. I am a feminist who is not going to allow men ( or women, come to that) to trample over rights women have had to fight hard for and which are always at risk, as we see in the US now.
The views I have expressed have been strongly influenced by a friend of mine who is transitioning to being a woman and who loathes - and has publicly stated her disagreement with - the stance taken by the voluble trans activists and organisations like Stonewall. She has taught me a lot about this issue.
My own views are heavily influenced by two good friends of mine who transitioned, one either way. And several colleagues and acquaintances who had transitioned. I saw a lot of metaphorical sh*t thrown at them due to their decision and consequent lifestyle - both socially and at work. It's not easy, and whilst I hope it's getting better, society can be far from understanding.
One of those friends committed suicide a few years ago. I am not trans, and I don't particularly have any right to speak for them, but I will think of my friends and my limited view of their experiences. And they're not perverts, n'er-do-wells, or even particularly odd (well, aside from being friends with me).
So when I see conversations where it becomes a case of implying trans people are a danger, I'll strongly argue the opposite. My two friends were a danger to no-one, and others were a danger to them.
AS for TERFs: they exist, and are often fairly sick bunnies. So, IMO, are the pro-trans people and groups who seem to care more about arguing than the genuine welfare of trans people. They are two groups of people who just throw muck at each other, with trans people unfortunately left in the middle.
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
I've got to say Cyclefree going full blown TERF is a change in style I am very happy to see.
I am not a TERF, an offensive description used to shut down women, much like all the other boo-words used to try and shut up women with a mind and opinions of their own. I am well used to this having worked in a male City environment for nearly 4 decades. It does not bother me in the slightest. I am a feminist who is not going to allow men ( or women, come to that) to trample over rights women have had to fight hard for and which are always at risk, as we see in the US now.
The views I have expressed have been strongly influenced by a friend of mine who is transitioning to being a woman and who loathes - and has publicly stated her disagreement with - the stance taken by the voluble trans activists and organisations like Stonewall. She has taught me a lot about this issue.
My own views are heavily influenced by two good friends of mine who transitioned, one either way. And several colleagues and acquaintances who had transitioned. I saw a lot of metaphorical sh*t thrown at them due to their decision and consequent lifestyle - both socially and at work. It's not easy, and whilst I hope it's getting better, society can be far from understanding.
One of those friends committed suicide a few years ago. I am not trans, and I don't particularly have any right to speak for them, but I will think of my friends and my limited view of their experiences. And they're not perverts, n'er-do-wells, or even particularly odd (well, aside from being friends with me).
So when I see conversations where it becomes a case of implying trans people are a danger, I'll strongly argue the opposite. My two friends were a danger to no-one, and others were a danger to them.
AS for TERFs: they exist, and are often fairly sick bunnies. So, IMO, are the pro-trans people and groups who seem to care more about arguing than the genuine welfare of trans people. They are two groups of people who just throw muck at each other, with trans people unfortunately left in the middle.
The thing you are missing there is that one easy way for people with dodgy intent is to pretend (self identify) to be transitioning towards being a women without any intent to actually do so. Isam pointed out an example last week that I posted earlier today.
And that is a problem that is very hard to deal with if others are insisting that self identification is enough.
Meanwhile as you say you have actual Trans people caught in the middle between 2 militant groups who seem mainly to want to play a game of political point scoring.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
I had a wedding booked in my diary for May, but that's been called off in dramatic circumstance. Therefore the PB dig if my most forwards looking diary entry.
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.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
I think what's needed here is data. Sorry for not taking your word for it.
Thanks. I've selected a few monthly breakdowns and in each case so far the rates are about the same or lower than pre-pandemic. Obviously there has been a rise from the artificial trough that came about ~April 2020, but not up on the months before that. In any case, the gold standard would be across all industries, broken down by sector or wage decile so we can really get a sense of who is gaining (if anyone) or losing (if anyone).
So far, from the data you've just shown me, it looks like wages have not risen, but I'll reserve judgement til I see something more comprehensive.
New Zealand company Rocket Lab have given more details of their new Neutron rocket, which will be in the same class as SpaceX's Falcon 9. It has some very interesting features that make it rather different to the F9, whilst trying to solve the same problems.
(For those not particularly into space, Rocket Lab are one of three private newspace companies to launch rockets into orbit: SpaceX, Rocket Lab and, recently, Astra. Rocket Lab have had 19 successful flights and three failures.)
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?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.
Not the case with the EU.
The Member States vote for parties who want to be in the EU. So perfectly democratic. Those Member States who don't want to be in the EU vote for parties who want to leave. Also perfectly democratic.
It is exactly the same. Can you change the laws that were decided by the cabinet and voted for in parliament on mask wearing? I don't believe you can. But it is still a democratic process.
Yes I can. I can vote for a party that will drop mask requirements at the Parliamentary elections.
Since the European Parliament doesn't have a European demos and doesn't form the European government anyway the same is not true in Europe.
Welcome to the club. How specific are you? The origin is from Devizes way, and other great stories include someone going from his rural village into Devizes in order to better see an eclipse...
Its also a classic tale of the underdog. Looks like its mocking the thick locals, raking for the cheese, that is of course the reflection of the moon, when in reality the locals are quicker witted than the revenue...
I lived in Devizes for a couple of years just over ten years ago. I live about fifteen miles from there now, but was there last week for my booster. I knew there was a pub in Swindon called the Moonrakers, but had no idea it was a name for Wiltshire folk.
Cheese or chalk?
In my younger days I had friends there/nearby so had a few trips exploring the area looking at megaliths etc in between pub opening times.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Cards against Humanity, obvs. The cabinet is full of em.
54k cases. Up quite a bit on last week. I think Omicron is much more widely prevalent than we thought. Now we just have to see how that plays out in hospitalisations and deaths. Both still going down.
Certainly seems one possible reason, although I note the lower than expected numbers sat-tuesday and wonder if there is partly some catching up going on. @Chris suggested possibly 1000 cases of omicron as few days ago based on the S drop out rates, and that could certainly be playing a role if it is even more transmissable than delta.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Cards against Humanity, obvs. The cabinet is full of em.
Given the recent HS2E cancellation - Ticket to Ride (Europe edition obviously).
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Cards against Humanity, obvs. The cabinet is full of em.
Pit.
That's the only game I've found that nobody hates.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Cards against Humanity, obvs. The cabinet is full of em.
Given the recent HS2E cancellation - Ticket to Ride (Europe edition obviously).
Pandemic is a bit obvious but someone has to say it
54k cases. Up quite a bit on last week. I think Omicron is much more widely prevalent than we thought. Now we just have to see how that plays out in hospitalisations and deaths. Both still going down.
Boosters seem to be doing the job so far driving down hospitalisations and deaths. However there could still be the time lag/ not yet seeing with Omicron its impact in terms of hospitalisations and deaths.
54k cases. Up quite a bit on last week. I think Omicron is much more widely prevalent than we thought. Now we just have to see how that plays out in hospitalisations and deaths. Both still going down.
Certainly seems one possible reason, although I note the lower than expected numbers sat-tuesday and wonder if there is partly some catching up going on. @Chris suggested possibly 1000 cases of omicron as few days ago based on the S drop out rates, and that could certainly be playing a role if it is even more transmissable than delta.
My suspicion is the recent very cold weather/Storm Arwen. That will be starting to feed through now given it'll surely have caused a few more indoor gatherings.
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.
What's wrong with that?
I'll tell you why.
Transition is a major undertaking. So before people do it, they should be certain and take the time to consider all aspects.
Second, a legal change has consequences for spouses and children. Their rights need to be considered and taken into account.
Third, a legal change has implications for the data which is collected and held and used to inform all sorts of public, criminal, policing and health policy, as well as legal cases which are based on sex. If this data and statistics are distorted this will impact - often adversely - on others who rely on it for their legal rights; see, for instance, the use of the comparator in equal pay claims.
Fourth, it has legal and social consequences for those in the sex to which the person changes. Someone who fully transitions to being a woman may remain biologically a male but - other than for her own health needs - this does not generally impact other women. But someone who doesn't transition at all but simply declares it does have an impact because that person retains a male body and all the physical, sexual and other attributes that go with that - and these do have an impact on other women.
So while I would certainly support additional resources to make the process of getting a diagnosis and treatment faster and easier, I think that for such a life-changing decision with considerable impact on others, I think it right that the final legal change not be speeded up and that there needs to be external objective medical validation of what the person is saying.
And why just elite sports? Why not all sports? What about domestic violence refuges? Or rape centres? Or hospital wards? Or changing rooms? Or the Girl Guides? Etc The reasons for protecting women in prisons are just as valid for women and girls in all these other situations as well. Pretty soon you end up in the situation you have now where so long as the reasons for single sex spaces are legitimate and proportionate you can have them (the current situation under the Equality Act, Schedule 7 - if you must know).
So why change it?
Completely agree with your main point here - to change legal gender is a very grave thing to do. Hence why the vast majority of those who do it will be doing so for profound and genuine reasons and such should be our assumption. And although others are affected, at the end of the day this is primarily a matter for the individual concerned. Whatever process you have, it comes down to their assessment of themselves, who and what they are.
A process based on self-ID doesn't mean it's done lightly or for sinister reasons. Several countries have such a process. Germany is about to go that route. It's not some superwoke outlier being proposed. Certainly wasn't seen that way 3 years ago when the May government were looking at it and I don't see why the big change now compared to then. I also don't see why it's such a hot potato here in the UK, more so by a degree of magnitude, it seems, than in other countries.
The data point is a good one. I'm not arguing that gender should replace sex in all information systems. Or that birth sex for an individual should be retrospectively changed. That was a fact, sex at birth, and it remains a fact.
Finally you mention various areas, other than prisons and sports, where you'd look to exclude trans people. I might disagree with some of them but, as I say, this is a debate to have. Make the legal gender change process easier (and it will never be a priority for medical resource, let's face it), have a default principle of inclusion, and decide which things should be governed by sex not gender.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Cards against Humanity, obvs. The cabinet is full of em.
Pit.
That's the only game I've found that nobody hates.
I saw a Pit deck when I was a small child and couldn't make head nor tail of it. A bull and a bear, so something stock related?
1) Nothing ever tops the American Centurion charge card I had, you couldn't apply for that, you had to be selected. It was dropped off by a courier in a lovely leather box
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
Are the benefits still worth the old American Express black card? I dated a girl for a while when I was at uni who had one, and I remember the benefits on travel and restaurants where the big tangible perks.
Not unless you still do an awful lot of travelling, and the sort of travelling that means you need to lean on their conscierge service for restaurant bookings in every city you visit. Otherwise, it’s mostly virtue signalling to have one in your wallet.
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Cards against Humanity, obvs. The cabinet is full of em.
Pit.
That's the only game I've found that nobody hates.
I saw a Pit deck when I was a small child and couldn't make head nor tail of it. A bull and a bear, so something stock related?
It's an incredibly simple game where everyone has to shout a lot. You won't go wrong if you acquire a set.
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
I've got to say Cyclefree going full blown TERF is a change in style I am very happy to see.
I am not a TERF, an offensive description used to shut down women, much like all the other boo-words used to try and shut up women with a mind and opinions of their own. I am well used to this having worked in a male City environment for nearly 4 decades. It does not bother me in the slightest. I am a feminist who is not going to allow men ( or women, come to that) to trample over rights women have had to fight hard for and which are always at risk, as we see in the US now.
The views I have expressed have been strongly influenced by a friend of mine who is transitioning to being a woman and who loathes - and has publicly stated her disagreement with - the stance taken by the voluble trans activists and organisations like Stonewall. She has taught me a lot about this issue.
My own views are heavily influenced by two good friends of mine who transitioned, one either way. And several colleagues and acquaintances who had transitioned. I saw a lot of metaphorical sh*t thrown at them due to their decision and consequent lifestyle - both socially and at work. It's not easy, and whilst I hope it's getting better, society can be far from understanding.
One of those friends committed suicide a few years ago. I am not trans, and I don't particularly have any right to speak for them, but I will think of my friends and my limited view of their experiences. And they're not perverts, n'er-do-wells, or even particularly odd (well, aside from being friends with me).
So when I see conversations where it becomes a case of implying trans people are a danger, I'll strongly argue the opposite. My two friends were a danger to no-one, and others were a danger to them.
AS for TERFs: they exist, and are often fairly sick bunnies. So, IMO, are the pro-trans people and groups who seem to care more about arguing than the genuine welfare of trans people. They are two groups of people who just throw muck at each other, with trans people unfortunately left in the middle.
The thing you are missing there is that one easy way for people with dodgy intent is to pretend (self identify) to be transitioning towards being a women without any intent to actually do so. Isam pointed out an example last week that I posted earlier today.
And that is a problem that is very hard to deal with if others are insisting that self identification is enough.
Meanwhile as you say you have actual Trans people caught in the middle between 2 militant groups who seem mainly to want to play a game of political point scoring.
I don't miss that issue.
It's possibly a terminology problem. IMO unregulated self-id is much more problematic than 'trans', for the reasons many people give. But since people (on both sides) used 'self-id' to mean trans as well (perhaps because self-id is part of trans), then a messy mess becomes messier.
It might be better if the two different situations were separated, and not conflated - as I say, both sides do it. Or perhaps they're just a part of a continuum, so are impossible to separate...
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Did they slip on the ice whilst unknowingly covid positive, or catch it in hospital after the same?
Cases seem to have levelled off in the yoof - it appears to be their parents going Christmas shopping who are getting it. Certainly applies in my family - sister-in-law tested positive yesterday after a visit to Meadowhell.
Not showing a big increase in London which is where you'd expect Omicron effects to show first.
I've just found out that Wiltshire is in the West Country. News to me. Always thought that was just Devon and Cornwall, or - at a stretch - Somerset and Dorset. Isn't Wiltshire in the Midlands?
Seem to recall drinking some quite rough cider in Wiltshire when I was young.
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.
The problem isn’t trans women. The problem is men, some of whom are sex offenders, posing as trans women.
But this is still not addressing my point.
How does making the legal gender change process easier make it more likely that such men will access female spaces that aren't policed for legal gender?
OT. Suggestions please as to what games may have been played at the 18th December 2020 Downing Street party. 'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
Comments
Ciotti has already said he would endorse Zemmour in the runoff if he did not get through and Zemmour did and would be a clear shift to the right by Les Republicains if he does get the nomination to take on Macron
Pecresse may still win in the runoff though after Bertrand has just endorsed her
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1466404166566350859?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectsContext/status/1466417762709000217?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectsContext/status/1466419582600626193?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectsContext/status/1466424026537070593?s=20
The last line could be “they think that they’re something special”?
And ‘tiers’ is an easy swap for the original’s ‘tears’ in line three
- there's been a significant shift over recent weeks in favour of independence and the SNP/Greens
Or
- its a bit of an outlier and we should wait to see whether other pollsters pick up such a significant swing.
Con 54% (64.5%)
Lab 25% (23.5%)
RefUK 14%
LD 2%(8.3%)
Green 4%(3.2%)
Others 1%
God help us if this is the level of science journalism at the BBC now.
It is exactly the same. Can you change the laws that were decided by the cabinet and voted for in parliament on mask wearing? I don't believe you can. But it is still a democratic process.
The views I have expressed have been strongly influenced by a friend of mine who is transitioning to being a woman and who loathes - and has publicly stated her disagreement with - the stance taken by the voluble trans activists and organisations like Stonewall. She has taught me a lot about this issue.
No one should make the mistake of thinking there's no vaccine escape here as far as infection is concerned.
Revolut have launched an 24carat gold plated debit card yours for a mere one off £79.99
https://www.world-today-news.com/revolut-announces-a-24-carat-gold-plated-card-for-customers/
On the 8th day of Christmas PB gave to me
8 variants spreading, 7 unnecessary headlines, 6 conspiracy theories, 5 contradictory public briefs, 3 wise experts panicking, 2 politicians spinning, and iSage up a pear tree.
2) Revolut are charlatans. They block your account for the most spurious of reasons. I had a friend who had £3,000 withheld from him for nearly a month because he used it in Waitrose.
Scum scum scum
Scum scum scum
Scum scum all the way
They partied on
And that was wrong
That's all I'm gonna say, ey?
Or take a man who gets off on hearing women describe their sexual assault. They can insist on joining a rape trauma group. And so on.
Self-ID provides a bloody enormous loophole. That will be used by those with evil intent. There are more of them about than you seem to think. And where something close to self-ID has been permitted instances of predators abusing this have happened.
But changing rooms are not policed for legal gender. So how does it become harder to eject such a person if the process for changing legal gender were to be made easier?
I can't see how it does. Can't see the logical link. This is the point I'm making.
In the 1990's ITV Central region used to include Swindon as part of their area, which was good as Town played live on TV many times. Oddly BBC South Today seems to count Swindon as part of their area. Certainly if something juicy happens, like a murder.
Todays official press release has 1 case confirmed from that event. Let's wait and see.
You also need to ask yourself why when I'm told about something incredibly tacky did I instantly think of you.
How can anyone return from a trip to SA given what was known and think it was a good idea to go to a party.
One of the UK cases seems to have flown in from SA, visited KFC, and then flown out. How necessary was that!?
None of us are perfect, but there are some real arses out there.
https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/omikron-smitte-i-oslo-etter-julebord-1.15754329
I remember ringing up AMEX concierge and saying I need to get into this exclusive restaurant but they are sold out for the next three months, about 10 minutes later they came back with a plethora of available dates for the restaurant in the next fortnight.
Great onomatopoeic place names.
Honestly, I wore red shoes one time and people draw all the wrong conclusions.
That's why I've bought new footwear for the PB meet in February.
It's certainly not the Midlands!
Patrick McKenzie (who works for Stripe) is currently doing a newsletter regarding finance and it's variations around the world. It's well worth subscribing if it's of interest. https://bam.kalzumeus.com/
(I know that's not quite what you meant CHB)
Actually I might - are there details?
Who is arguably a better comparator for Johnson than the earlier absurd suggestion of Lincoln.
Sarehole Mill and all that....
I think the 2018 final in Kyiv was 'fun', no bloody hotels available, not even AMEX could source me a room, so I ended up pretty much having a trip like The Terminal.
Ruh roh
(More in anticipation of panic than anything - admissions are still falling)
The Queen: +71 (+4)
William: +67 (+5)
Kate: +64 (+5)
Charles: +27 (+10)
Camilla: +3 (+2)
Harry: -15 (+10)
Meghan: -38 (+1)
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1466435234472370190?s=20
The company I am associated with has kept some guys for years. This year the rates are going up....
One of those friends committed suicide a few years ago. I am not trans, and I don't particularly have any right to speak for them, but I will think of my friends and my limited view of their experiences. And they're not perverts, n'er-do-wells, or even particularly odd (well, aside from being friends with me).
So when I see conversations where it becomes a case of implying trans people are a danger, I'll strongly argue the opposite. My two friends were a danger to no-one, and others were a danger to them.
AS for TERFs: they exist, and are often fairly sick bunnies. So, IMO, are the pro-trans people and groups who seem to care more about arguing than the genuine welfare of trans people. They are two groups of people who just throw muck at each other, with trans people unfortunately left in the middle.
And that is a problem that is very hard to deal with if others are insisting that self identification is enough.
Meanwhile as you say you have actual Trans people caught in the middle between 2 militant groups who seem mainly to want to play a game of political point scoring.
'Twister' - 'Charades' - Monopoly' and 'Musical Chairmanships' are all too obvious.
I had a wedding booked in my diary for May, but that's been called off in dramatic circumstance. Therefore the PB dig if my most forwards looking diary entry.
Mind you.. missing CHB!
In any case, the gold standard would be across all industries, broken down by sector or wage decile so we can really get a sense of who is gaining (if anyone) or losing (if anyone).
So far, from the data you've just shown me, it looks like wages have not risen, but I'll reserve judgement til I see something more comprehensive.
Bexley 100%
North Shrops 52%
New Zealand company Rocket Lab have given more details of their new Neutron rocket, which will be in the same class as SpaceX's Falcon 9. It has some very interesting features that make it rather different to the F9, whilst trying to solve the same problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kwAPr5G6WA
(For those not particularly into space, Rocket Lab are one of three private newspace companies to launch rockets into orbit: SpaceX, Rocket Lab and, recently, Astra. Rocket Lab have had 19 successful flights and three failures.)
Since the European Parliament doesn't have a European demos and doesn't form the European government anyway the same is not true in Europe.
Cheese or chalk?
In my younger days I had friends there/nearby so had a few trips exploring the area looking at megaliths etc in between pub opening times.
Not Diplomacy for sure.
That's the only game I've found that nobody hates.
Next 2-3 weeks we should know a lot more.
A process based on self-ID doesn't mean it's done lightly or for sinister reasons. Several countries have such a process. Germany is about to go that route. It's not some superwoke outlier being proposed. Certainly wasn't seen that way 3 years ago when the May government were looking at it and I don't see why the big change now compared to then. I also don't see why it's such a hot potato here in the UK, more so by a degree of magnitude, it seems, than in other countries.
The data point is a good one. I'm not arguing that gender should replace sex in all information systems. Or that birth sex for an individual should be retrospectively changed. That was a fact, sex at birth, and it remains a fact.
Finally you mention various areas, other than prisons and sports, where you'd look to exclude trans people. I might disagree with some of them but, as I say, this is a debate to have. Make the legal gender change process easier (and it will never be a priority for medical resource, let's face it), have a default principle of inclusion, and decide which things should be governed by sex not gender.
It's possibly a terminology problem. IMO unregulated self-id is much more problematic than 'trans', for the reasons many people give. But since people (on both sides) used 'self-id' to mean trans as well (perhaps because self-id is part of trans), then a messy mess becomes messier.
It might be better if the two different situations were separated, and not conflated - as I say, both sides do it. Or perhaps they're just a part of a continuum, so are impossible to separate...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_the_Pigs
Did they slip on the ice whilst unknowingly covid positive, or catch it in hospital after the same?
Cases seem to have levelled off in the yoof - it appears to be their parents going Christmas shopping who are getting it. Certainly applies in my family - sister-in-law tested positive yesterday after a visit to Meadowhell.
Not showing a big increase in London which is where you'd expect Omicron effects to show first.
How does making the legal gender change process easier make it more likely that such men will access female spaces that aren't policed for legal gender?