I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.
Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.
Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.
The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.
So what would be great about his PM-ship.
The Great British Public won World War II. The Great American Public won the War of Independence.
History remembers the leaders. History remembers Churchill or Washington etc
Boris was the leader of the Leave campaign and PM who got Brexit done. I don't think discounting that by giving credit to the public washes.
I know there's some wishcasting that Brexit will be a failure in your view on the history books, but that's not going to be done based upon "relative" positions etc . . . if England* is in the future outside the EU then we will diverge and ultimately the idea of the England being in the EU is going to be as alien a concept as the idea of Canada being in the USA.
Unless Brexit is reversed, then Brexit will have been a success. Relative positions are neither here nor there.
* Or Britain or the UK depending upon the future state.
Nigel Farage was the leader of the Leave campaign; Boris and Gove were doing something or other.
History does remember the leaders and is also analytical about them. I didn't say Brexit was a failure. I hope that the country thrives now albeit there is evidence that we will be a bit poorer, a bit more inconvenienced, a bit more adrift but that's not the end of the world. I said that the UK's relative position might not be great. Same with the Covid reaction. It doesn't shape up as looking particularly great overall.
Farage was leader of a Leave campaign, but Boris was the effective leader of the rea one and the actual PM who delivered so the notion history won't remember him for that is for the birds.
Unless we rejoin the EU then ultimately as the EU evolves into being our neighbouring country then history will remember Boris as the PM who ensured we were independent from it.
That's looking too far ahead imo.
At present the EU is in a reet mess, and there is little consensus about where to go next. And so many internal tensions that it is questionable if they will be able to move once it is agreed.
Indeed but unless they break up, Federations tend to evolve in one direction and the EU is a relatively fast speed compared to prior ones.
In Federations, over time power accumulates in the centre and the EU hasn't been shy to take its opportunities to take power. Once that happens, it becomes hard to reverse short of leaving the federation.
Even if its a mess, even if its difficult, the nation of federations is to either centralise or disband in general. I expect the EU to continue evolving into a federal state like the USA or Australia etc have done before it.
It may be messy, but hopefully not as messy as middle of the nineteenth century America was. England will evolve differently and over time it will just be considered normal and not debatable as to why England is not a part of federal Europe.
I can't call it.
There's a tension between core / periphery, and between different standards applied to different members, and some strange reliance on old theology to justify things being done in todays particular way (the claims for supremacy over Polish national law seem to rely on legal claims going back to 1965 - yet Germany gets away with clipping the wings of EU Law).
And bits of spice such as the 1m Euro a day fines for Poland and Hungary.
And little or no critical media.
Plus the prospect of different views on EU vs NATO. The Eastern edge will not be relying on an EU 'Army' to defend them from Russia, I suspect. Until such an 'army' is proven.
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.)
That’s cool. How awesome does technology advance, when a public monopoly like NASA is exchanged for a private competition?
Humans could leave earth orbit in 1972, we haven't done so since, so technology has regressed massively in space flight.
No - the technology is still there. Just people not choosing to use it, for reasons of cost.
In fact in the last couple of decades, space flight technology has moved forward massively. The next trip to the moon will probably be for a few percent of an Apollo launch...
This is still delta, not omicron. Omicron might be gaining but it's not dominant yet.
Indeed, even with a naive R of 20 it wouldn't be a key driver yet. We'll just have to wait and see if something has really changed, or if a 5 day diet of Covid on the front pages has just boosted testing numbers. The reported testing numbers are obviously an understated as not many people are daft enough to register a negative unless they're catching a plane, so we may just have to wait to see if this week's figures can be lapped or not.
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.
There is also some very good cider there.
So I believe. But at the time I was young and impecunious and so bought the cheapest. Sadly there were few if any unattached girls in the youth hostel that night, otherwise I might not have tried it.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Yes. Seems so obvious that was the point, hard to believe Kinabalu couldn’t fathom it
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
Only if the space is policed for legal gender which most changing rooms aren't.
On the subject of Omicron, Minnesota has discovered a case that (a) had no international travel, and (b) where the sample was collected *before* the one analysed in South Africa.
So, I think it's fair to say Omicron is everywhere.
Which is interesting, because it suggests it is not easily outcompeting Delta.
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.)
That’s cool. How awesome does technology advance, when a public monopoly like NASA is exchanged for a private competition?
TBF, SpaceX's development of F9 and Dragon/Dragon 2 were largely funded by NASA. AIUI Astra have received funds from the DoD for their launch-anytime-anywhere program.
But the difference is: NASA and the DoD saying "We want this capability. Go build it" and letting the companies mostly get on with it, rather than NASA running the whole thing, as they did with the Shuttle.
ULA is the interesting part of this: and they are stymied somewhat by Boeing IMO.
The massive difference, is that the old NASA cost-plus build model, with operations in at least all of the 48 contiguous States, has been replaced by one which delivers the capability for a fraction of the cost of the alternative - the Senate Launch System is still to deliver astronauts to the ISS.
Did they slip on the ice whilst unknowingly covid positive, or catch it in hospital after the same?
2) 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.
3) Not showing a big increase in London which is where you'd expect Omicron effects to show first.
1) There was an brief bump in the 85+ case data for England a couple of weeks ago -
Might be related...
2) Yes 3) Indeed
London. It's slight but:
32/32 boroughs increasing on w/e 27/10 Vs w/e 20/10, from under 1% to mid 20s%, albeit from low levels.
27/10 Vs 20/10 cases by case date = 16% increase 28/10 Vs 21/10 cases by case date > 13% increase (> because 28/10 is not regarded as a final figure) 29/10 Vs 22/10 cases by case date > 22% increase 30/10 Vs 23/10 > 10% increase
The later increases are likely to rise more than the earlier ones.
Could be Omicron, could be cold, could be London correcting from a low base.
On the subject of Omicron, Minnesota has discovered a case that (a) had no international travel, and (b) where the sample was collected *before* the one analysed in South Africa.
So, I think it's fair to say Omicron is everywhere.
Which is interesting, because it suggests it is not easily outcompeting Delta.
Of course it’s everywhere, it’s just that it took a few weeks before South Africa spotted it.
On the subject of Omicron, Minnesota has discovered a case that (a) had no international travel, and (b) where the sample was collected *before* the one analysed in South Africa.
So, I think it's fair to say Omicron is everywhere.
Which is interesting, because it suggests it is not easily outcompeting Delta.
All very early so may be bilge, but the thrust of most informed guessing I've seen is it's less transmissible than delta, but has better immunity escape which tends to offset that.
Given transmissibility seems to be positively correlated with severity for this virus (as death happens after transmission ceases, and both transmission and severity are really a question of how many cells get subverted), that would offer hope that the current talk of it being milder may have some basis.
On the subject of Omicron, Minnesota has discovered a case that (a) had no international travel, and (b) where the sample was collected *before* the one analysed in South Africa.
So, I think it's fair to say Omicron is everywhere.
Which is interesting, because it suggests it is not easily outcompeting Delta.
The nature of growth in these things is that there is a slow start before lift off, so hard to say for sure...
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
(More in anticipation of panic than anything - admissions are still falling)
At 700, admissions are 6.5% lower than same day last week (748).
Isn’t it the columns go up and down at different times? but the first column going up suggests second column may go up approx ten days later and if does suggest third column may go up 28 days later?
And then first country is declaring it’s won the war whilst staring at second country in trouble, and then it flips round as everyone waves at different times?
NOW LOOK WHAT YOU DONE you’ve got me playing bugs and drugs game I know nothing about!
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.)
That’s cool. How awesome does technology advance, when a public monopoly like NASA is exchanged for a private competition?
Humans could leave earth orbit in 1972, we haven't done so since, so technology has regressed massively in space flight.
No - the technology is still there. Just people not choosing to use it, for reasons of cost.
In fact in the last couple of decades, space flight technology has moved forward massively. The next trip to the moon will probably be for a few percent of an Apollo launch...
In 1972 humans could fly 250,000 miles to the moon, orbit the moon, launch a lander, land on the moon, drive an electric car around, hit golf shots, get back in their lander take off, meet the orbiting vehicle and dock, fly back to earth and land in the sea. All with less computer power than is in a modern microwave.
Since 1972 the furthest a human has been from the earth is 350 miles.
It does not feel like an advance in technology at all.
Compare any other form of technology from 1972 to now.
As a child who went to infants and juniors in the 70's and was bought up on the promise of humans exploring the Universe, with Apollo as the first step,its hard to understand that we simply can't leave earth orbit anymore.. I think in my lifetime Apollo will remain the final step.
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.)
That’s cool. How awesome does technology advance, when a public monopoly like NASA is exchanged for a private competition?
TBF, SpaceX's development of F9 and Dragon/Dragon 2 were largely funded by NASA. AIUI Astra have received funds from the DoD for their launch-anytime-anywhere program.
But the difference is: NASA and the DoD saying "We want this capability. Go build it" and letting the companies mostly get on with it, rather than NASA running the whole thing, as they did with the Shuttle.
ULA is the interesting part of this: and they are stymied somewhat by Boeing IMO.
The massive difference, is that the old NASA cost-plus build model, with operations in at least all of the 48 contiguous States, has been replaced by one which delivers the capability for a fraction of the cost of the alternative - the Senate Launch System is still to deliver astronauts to the ISS.
SLS will never be used to deliver astronauts to ISS. It was the ludicrousness of that idea (and it;'s complete unworkability) that forced the adoption of Commercial Crew.
You may be thinking of the Boeing capsule (CST-100) which is still having problems. Though it was partially developed under the original SAA (Space Act Agreements) which were fixed price, the later part of the program was done under FAR.
Because Boeing said that they couldn't get their heads round building something for a given price and it was unfair and could they please have Cost Plus....... despite an actual study that proved that FAR was 5-10x more expensive than SAA. But then, under FAR, congress gets to spread the money around like sweet, soft butter.....
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.
They're surely experts already at the Truth and Lies game?
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
It isn't the current case rate that will affect the spread of Omicron, it is the level of population immunity.
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.
I think that may well be it. Some studies have shown a pretty strong lagged correlation between air temperature and case count (lag of about 7 days).
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.)
Looks amazing, Elon Musk, might have some real competition!
TfL is likely to go bust soon. Is there a sanction against the Mayor allowing this to happen?
Khan has been poor, but I can't quite work out why anyone would want to see him rolled over by the unions.
With a pandemic on TfL relies on government grants. If it goes bust (it wont but it will be cut harder and further) most people in London will rightly blame the government ahead of the Mayor. People who don't like Khan now will like him less and blame him.
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
Only if the space is policed for legal gender which most changing rooms aren't.
Oh don't be a dimwit. If a man comes in now he is - or can be - challenged. If he can say "I'm a woman" he won't be. And since sexual predators don't come with identifying marks on their forehead, women will have to take the risk that, rather than being a woman, he is an autogynephiliac or a sexual predator or a voyeur or a violent man or just a creep.
And why the fuck should we have to take that risk?
HGV delivery drivers in UK increased by 30k Q3 over Q2:
The HGV driver shortage has eased significantly in recent months, as almost half the drivers who left the profession during the pandemic have now been recovered, official data shows.
The number of HGV drivers in the UK grew by 30,000 in Q3, reflecting a 40% recovery in the drop in numbers since the beginning of the pandemic, according to the ONS quarterly labour survey released last week.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
It isn't the current case rate that will affect the spread of Omicron, it is the level of population immunity.
Out-competition of another variant is a different point. We aren't asking Will people get omicron or resist it because of existing immunity, we are saying Assuming a non-immune population with delta and omicron spreaders in it, how many will get which? It seems intuitively obvious to me that the fewer delta spreaders (i.e. currently infected) the easier omicron's job.
HGV delivery drivers in UK increased by 30k Q3 over Q2:
The HGV driver shortage has eased significantly in recent months, as almost half the drivers who left the profession during the pandemic have now been recovered, official data shows.
The number of HGV drivers in the UK grew by 30,000 in Q3, reflecting a 40% recovery in the drop in numbers since the beginning of the pandemic, according to the ONS quarterly labour survey released last week.
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.
Social distancing in pubs/restaurants +44 2m rule +28 Close clubs +21 Rule of 6 indoors +8 No large events +1 Rule of 6 outdoors -23 No household mixing indoors -35 Full lockdown -36 Close pubs/restaurants -45 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1466431813811949586?s=20
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.
Think you might be missing mine too. The main control sits around which things are restricted by sex rather than gender and by the policing of that. It isn't to do with the legal gender change process. To keep biological males out of a female space you'd need to regulate it by sex. If you do that, biological males will be excluded. If you don't they won't be. This is the case regardless of the legal gender change process. If that were self-id but (eg) refuges were regulated by sex, this is a tighter control (from your precautionary perspective) than no self-id and regulation by gender.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
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.
If anyone is James Buchanan then surely it is Cameron?
Boris won the UKs Brexit Civil War so that makes him Lincoln.
Everybody's favourite bedwetting nympholept @Leon is very quiet today. I hope he's just busy furbishing his buttplug.
Every pub has a Leon, whose there till closing time. Ignore him though, he’s a bit weird. As I am waiting for other half to come home, and finishing off the wine before she does, I am giving you benefit of more of my expertise on bugs crisis for free.
First Column infectious peoples ain’t going to go down much between now and February as most of us don’t give a bloody shit anymore and we are going out shopping and partying whenever we want.
Unlike some people I get to go to heaven because I wear a mask wherever rules say I should. Which mask depends on what my outfit is. I like the Pollockesque (Jackson) that matches my blue micro skirt that’s nearly the same!
Can I post pictures of me in my brilliant masks outfits? How do you attach pictures?
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.
If anyone is James Buchanan then surely it is Cameron?
Boris won the UKs Brexit Civil War so that makes him Lincoln.
Surely he is hoping it has a different ending to Lincoln...
HGV delivery drivers in UK increased by 30k Q3 over Q2:
The HGV driver shortage has eased significantly in recent months, as almost half the drivers who left the profession during the pandemic have now been recovered, official data shows.
The number of HGV drivers in the UK grew by 30,000 in Q3, reflecting a 40% recovery in the drop in numbers since the beginning of the pandemic, according to the ONS quarterly labour survey released last week.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 39m The number of people in hospital with Covid in England has fallen below 6,000. There were more patients at the end of August than there are today. This time last year there were 13,000 - and that was after 3 weeks of lockdown.
HGV delivery drivers in UK increased by 30k Q3 over Q2:
The HGV driver shortage has eased significantly in recent months, as almost half the drivers who left the profession during the pandemic have now been recovered, official data shows.
The number of HGV drivers in the UK grew by 30,000 in Q3, reflecting a 40% recovery in the drop in numbers since the beginning of the pandemic, according to the ONS quarterly labour survey released last week.
@TSE can get his 40 tons of Pineapple Pizza. If he's quick.
So they finally worked out that they can’t pay a rolling team of Romanians £300 a week for a few months, living in their cabs; and now understand that they need to pay £600 a week, plus expenses, to a Brit doing the same work. Oh well…
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
Because the active and recent antibodies can inhibit and crowd out growth of a variant.
It's like how out of control forest fires are more dangerous if there hasn't been any controlled fires recently than if there have been.
Everybody's favourite bedwetting nympholept @Leon is very quiet today. I hope he's just busy furbishing his buttplug.
Every pub has a Leon, whose there till closing time. Ignore him though, he’s a bit weird. As I am waiting for other half to come home, and finishing off the wine before she does, I am giving you benefit of more of my expertise on bugs crisis for free.
First Column infectious peoples ain’t going to go down much between now and February as most of us don’t give a bloody shit anymore and we are going out shopping and partying whenever we want.
Unlike some people I get to go to heaven because I wear a mask wherever rules say I should. Which mask depends on what my outfit is. I like the Pollockesque (Jackson) that matches my blue micro skirt that’s nearly the same!
Can I post pictures of me in my brilliant masks outfits? How do you attach pictures?
I created an an account on imugr.com - it's free
If you select one of the images you've uploaded, it offers a variety of example of how to link to the picture.
Copy and paste the "HTML" one into a PB post and it will appear in the post.
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.
Exactly. You can vote for a party that will drop the mask requirements but today you can't change it. Both vital democratic elements of our society. If enough people agree with you then the party gets in and masks are dropped.
And likewise if you wanted to stay in or leave the EU you can (and did) vote for it but until that time you don't have a direct say in every EU ruling or policy.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
It's a mess, or at least a potential one. As someone who has never had any ambition to hang around women's toilets or claim not to be male, I (hope) I understand your concerns. And I'm very, very concerned about the idea of children..... under 18's .... transitioning without considerable competent psychological counselling. Having written that, there's a 'lad' at the school one of my teenage granddaughters attends, indeed in her class, who she says regards himself as female, is probably the most competent make-up artist in the class, and, apparently says he's going to 'properly' transition as soon as he can. I'm not sure how he gets on with games or the games changing rooms. It's private, mainly girls, school and apparently they cope. TBH, neither Mrs C nor I feel the need to inquire too deeply! Or the desirability of so doing!
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.
They're surely experts already at the Truth and Lies game?
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?
Because it makes it harder to call out any men abusing the facilities - at the moment it's easy to do so and a shop would be in it's rights to remove and bar such a person.
If you move to self identification being enough, removing and barring that person becomes a whole lot more complex.
A shop?
But anyway, look, I just don't see the logic.
Unless a place is regulated by legal gender - which few are - I don't see how a man being creepy announcing "I'm a woman" protects him from the consequences.
Do you want to see more places policed by legal gender?
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.
Think you might be missing mine too. The main control sits around which things are restricted by sex rather than gender and by the policing of that. It isn't to do with the legal gender change process. To keep biological males out of a female space you'd need to regulate it by sex. If you do that, biological males will be excluded. If you don't they won't be. This is the case regardless of the legal gender change process. If that were self-id but (eg) refuges were regulated by sex, this is a tighter control (from your precautionary perspective) than no self-id and regulation by gender.
You miss the point -you cannot restrict by biology and that cannot be changed (Trans women can already use the appropriate / preferred facilities).
Your entire counter argument is based on something that doesn't exist and cannot be retrospectively created without hurting some people.
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
I would have thought considerably more than 1% of the British population will have Delta. My sister-in-law, vaccinated got a positive LFT and self isolated, but never got a PCR; ditto my best friend and his girlfriend.
My gut is that the PCR numbers undercount the number of mildly symptomatic vaccinated cases out there.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
Yep, I think we're well into hypotheticals in the discussion.
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.
I think that may well be it. Some studies have shown a pretty strong lagged correlation between air temperature and case count (lag of about 7 days).
If you look at the cases by specinin date, the spike is on Monday. It then takes 2-3 days to be reported. So it's partly some sort of weekend effect. But numbers do also seem to be creeping up.
TfL is likely to go bust soon. Is there a sanction against the Mayor allowing this to happen?
Khan has been poor, but I can't quite work out why anyone would want to see him rolled over by the unions.
With a pandemic on TfL relies on government grants. If it goes bust (it wont but it will be cut harder and further) most people in London will rightly blame the government ahead of the Mayor. People who don't like Khan now will like him less and blame him.
TfL is subject to the requirements of s114 Local Government Finance Act 1988 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/section/114. This is the mechanism which Croydon and Northampton Councils declared their financial problems.
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
ah I meant/wanted to read that - can you/he repost?
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
I think it largely depends how recently they have had it, and who has had it.
When: If you have had Delta in the last 6 months (ish) you are likely to still have antibody's, if its longer than that then you should still have some level of protection form T-Cells, but not to the same extent, and are more likely to develop some symptoms, and spread the virus, than if it was in the last 6 months.
Who: if you have vaccinated most of your population and then have 5 months where 1% a week catch it, it will have filed in many of the gaps in population, so that a very high amount (93% in the UK by some estimates) have at least some protection, Antibody's, T Cells, or vaccine. but if you do it the other way round, wave of Delta, then vaccine, you don't get the same blanket coverage.
I'm not a virologist, or Doctor of any sort, so this is just my understanding, but I think there are good reasons to not panic, and not overreact until we know a more.
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.
Exactly. You can vote for a party that will drop the mask requirements but today you can't change it. Both vital democratic elements of our society. If enough people agree with you then the party gets in and masks are dropped.
And likewise if you wanted to stay in or leave the EU you can (and did) vote for it but until that time you don't have a direct say in every EU ruling or policy.
That's not good enough in a democracy Topping.
That's like saying you can leave the UK but unless you do you have no say in UK laws. No meaningful UK elections.
If the EU is to be making laws then it should be a genuine democracy. It isn't as it stands.
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
ah I meant/wanted to read that - can you/he repost?
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
A covid wave lasts a couple of months, does it not? so if on any given day 1% of the population "has covid" (and I think we have peaked at more like 1.5%) there's also a lot of very recently recovered people around, humming with immune systems and antibodies. I still don't see the point as obviously stupid.
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?
Wiltshire accents can still be quite Dorset-ty.
It's certainly not the Midlands!
The Midlands remarks was a gratuitous jibe. But honestly surprised Wiltshire is 'West Country'
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
ah I meant/wanted to read that - can you/he repost?
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?
Wiltshire accents can still be quite Dorset-ty.
It's certainly not the Midlands!
The Midlands remarks was a gratuitous jibe. But honestly surprised Wiltshire is 'West Country'
I think D & C are west country, wilts is the south west.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
It's a mess, or at least a potential one. As someone who has never had any ambition to hang around women's toilets or claim not to be male, I (hope) I understand your concerns. And I'm very, very concerned about the idea of children..... under 18's .... transitioning without considerable competent psychological counselling. Having written that, there's a 'lad' at the school one of my teenage granddaughters attends, indeed in her class, who she says regards himself as female, is probably the most competent make-up artist in the class, and, apparently says he's going to 'properly' transition as soon as he can. I'm not sure how he gets on with games or the games changing rooms. It's private, mainly girls, school and apparently they cope. TBH, neither Mrs C nor I feel the need to inquire too deeply! Or the desirability of so doing!
If the current conversion therapy ban proposals go through unamended , competent psychological counselling could well end up being being criminalised. This is a whole other topic which I am not going to go into now.
Suffice to say that the use of untested experimental puberty blockers and other hormones on children followed by surgery which often has the effect of rendering children infertile and unable to orgasm is, IMO, a class action lawsuit and medical negligence case just waiting to happen. It is a horror story.
A boy in my son's class was in a similar position in his mid-teens: good at make up, called himself the female version of his male name, wore women's clothes from time to time etc and thought he might be transgender. Then over time realised he was not and is now happily gay.
The rush to push children towards transition is appalling IMO. The reality may well be that many of them are not transgender at all but gay.
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.
I think that may well be it. Some studies have shown a pretty strong lagged correlation between air temperature and case count (lag of about 7 days).
If you look at the cases by specinin date, the spike is on Monday. It then takes 2-3 days to be reported. So it's partly some sort of weekend effect. But numbers do also seem to be creeping up.
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.
I think that may well be it. Some studies have shown a pretty strong lagged correlation between air temperature and case count (lag of about 7 days).
If you look at the cases by specinin date, the spike is on Monday. It then takes 2-3 days to be reported. So it's partly some sort of weekend effect. But numbers do also seem to be creeping up.
Some of the increases, may also be a case of more about COVID in the news, there for more people thinking about it, so when they show milled cold like symptoms they are more lily to get a test, than they would have been 2 weeks ago. Tests reported today are up 102,000 compared to same day last week which is about 9% rise. this may or may not be a big factor, as its hard to separate form more people having it and there for displaying systems there for getting tested.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
It's a mess, or at least a potential one. As someone who has never had any ambition to hang around women's toilets or claim not to be male, I (hope) I understand your concerns. And I'm very, very concerned about the idea of children..... under 18's .... transitioning without considerable competent psychological counselling. Having written that, there's a 'lad' at the school one of my teenage granddaughters attends, indeed in her class, who she says regards himself as female, is probably the most competent make-up artist in the class, and, apparently says he's going to 'properly' transition as soon as he can. I'm not sure how he gets on with games or the games changing rooms. It's private, mainly girls, school and apparently they cope. TBH, neither Mrs C nor I feel the need to inquire too deeply! Or the desirability of so doing!
If the current conversion therapy ban proposals go through unamended , competent psychological counselling could well end up being being criminalised. This is a whole other topic which I am not going to go into now.
Suffice to say that the use of untested experimental puberty blockers and other hormones on children followed by surgery which often has the effect of rendering children infertile and unable to orgasm is, IMO, a class action lawsuit and medical negligence case just waiting to happen. It is a horror story.
A boy in my son's class was in a similar position in his mid-teens: good at make up, called himself the female version of his male name, wore women's clothes from time to time etc and thought he might be transgender. Then over time realised he was not and is now happily gay.
The rush to push children towards transition is appalling IMO. The reality may well be that many of them are not transgender at all but gay.
There are already a fair few who have detransiitoned
In twenty or thirty years time this will be a big scandal and the govt will be issuing apologies
HGV delivery drivers in UK increased by 30k Q3 over Q2:
The HGV driver shortage has eased significantly in recent months, as almost half the drivers who left the profession during the pandemic have now been recovered, official data shows.
The number of HGV drivers in the UK grew by 30,000 in Q3, reflecting a 40% recovery in the drop in numbers since the beginning of the pandemic, according to the ONS quarterly labour survey released last week.
@TSE can get his 40 tons of Pineapple Pizza. If he's quick.
So pay rises result in more people wanting to do a job?
Surely that is wrong.
Food and logistics businesses have introduced a range of measures to attract drivers since the summer, but the businesses proving most successful weren’t necessarily the highest payers, said Shane Brennan, CEO of the Cold Chain Federation, at the Transport Select Committee on Wednesday. “It’s often the SMEs who have a better relationship with their drivers.”
Indeed - I was using pay as shorthand for "pay and conditions"
There was a very good video blog from a driver I saw a little while back. Stuff like turning up with frozen food, on a clock, to discover no-one to take delivery... reduced to ringing every number he had on bits of paper - and getting no answer.
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.
I think that may well be it. Some studies have shown a pretty strong lagged correlation between air temperature and case count (lag of about 7 days).
If you look at the cases by specinin date, the spike is on Monday. It then takes 2-3 days to be reported. So it's partly some sort of weekend effect. But numbers do also seem to be creeping up.
Some of the increases, may also be a case of more about COVID in the news, there for more people thinking about it, so when they show milled cold like symptoms they are more lily to get a test, than they would have been 2 weeks ago. Tests reported today are up 102,000 compared to same day last week which is about 9% rise. this may or may not be a big factor, as its hard to separate form more people having it and there for displaying systems there for getting tested.
The relatively severe cold going around, that includes a cough, will doubtless have sent a fair few people in search of tests. We’ve seen some anecdotes here.
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?
Because it makes it harder to call out any men abusing the facilities - at the moment it's easy to do so and a shop would be in it's rights to remove and bar such a person.
If you move to self identification being enough, removing and barring that person becomes a whole lot more complex.
A shop?
But anyway, look, I just don't see the logic.
Unless a place is regulated by legal gender - which few are - I don't see how a man being creepy announcing "I'm a woman" protects him from the consequences.
Do you want to see more places policed by legal gender?
A used a shop because I was talking about toilet facilities and pubs / nightclubs have rights to remove people in a way that a shop actually doesn't (bars can bar you from entering, shops need injunctions to do so).
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?
Wiltshire accents can still be quite Dorset-ty.
It's certainly not the Midlands!
The Midlands remarks was a gratuitous jibe. But honestly surprised Wiltshire is 'West Country'
I think D & C are west country, wilts is the south west.
The West Country is used informally to describe south-western portions of England from the British Channel to the English Channel. There is no official definition or boundaries for the West Country. Generally, the region includes the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset. The City and County of Bristol is also considered part of the West Country. Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are also sometimes included as part of the region. The West Country is also known as the South West of England, one of England's nine official regions that covers much of the West Country. The South West comprises of Bristol, Cornwall, Dorset, Devon, Gloucestershire, the Isles of Scilly, Somerset and Wiltshire.
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
I would have thought considerably more than 1% of the British population will have Delta. My sister-in-law, vaccinated got a positive LFT and self isolated, but never got a PCR; ditto my best friend and his girlfriend.
My gut is that the PCR numbers undercount the number of mildly symptomatic vaccinated cases out there.
I said 1% or so. The ONS estimate is between 1% and 2%. Either way, even if you couldn't have both at once, the effect on Omicron would obviously be minimal.
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?
Wiltshire accents can still be quite Dorset-ty.
It's certainly not the Midlands!
The Midlands remarks was a gratuitous jibe. But honestly surprised Wiltshire is 'West Country'
I think D & C are west country, wilts is the south west.
Wilts is deffo Wessex though - Wilton has been both the capital of Wessex and the county town of Wiltshire.
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
I would have thought considerably more than 1% of the British population will have Delta. My sister-in-law, vaccinated got a positive LFT and self isolated, but never got a PCR; ditto my best friend and his girlfriend.
My gut is that the PCR numbers undercount the number of mildly symptomatic vaccinated cases out there.
If 1 million got Delta per month from June to November, then about 10% of the population have had it, and about 1% would have active or very recent infections. Back of a fag packet, caveats apply.
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?
Wiltshire accents can still be quite Dorset-ty.
It's certainly not the Midlands!
The Midlands remarks was a gratuitous jibe. But honestly surprised Wiltshire is 'West Country'
I think D & C are west country, wilts is the south west.
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
Yes, it's very good. I think Macron would be quite happy to face Zemmour in the run-off.
Zemmour strikes me as French version of a sort of intellectual cross between Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and Tommy Robinson. Nothing like Trump at all.
Social distancing in pubs/restaurants +44 2m rule +28 Close clubs +21 Rule of 6 indoors +8 No large events +1 Rule of 6 outdoors -23 No household mixing indoors -35 Full lockdown -36 Close pubs/restaurants -45 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1466431813811949586?s=20
Conservative politicians to attend no events this Xmas to make up for last year’s transgressions = +99
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
A covid wave lasts a couple of months, does it not? so if on any given day 1% of the population "has covid" (and I think we have peaked at more like 1.5%) there's also a lot of very recently recovered people around, humming with immune systems and antibodies. I still don't see the point as obviously stupid.
I just told you he was talking about current cases, not previous cases!
On the subject of Omicron, Minnesota has discovered a case that (a) had no international travel, and (b) where the sample was collected *before* the one analysed in South Africa.
So, I think it's fair to say Omicron is everywhere.
Which is interesting, because it suggests it is not easily outcompeting Delta.
It also raises a ? about how effective all this tracing activity is, if this variant only got identified by SA months after it was already around the world.
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.
Exactly. You can vote for a party that will drop the mask requirements but today you can't change it. Both vital democratic elements of our society. If enough people agree with you then the party gets in and masks are dropped.
And likewise if you wanted to stay in or leave the EU you can (and did) vote for it but until that time you don't have a direct say in every EU ruling or policy.
That's not good enough in a democracy Topping.
That's like saying you can leave the UK but unless you do you have no say in UK laws. No meaningful UK elections.
If the EU is to be making laws then it should be a genuine democracy. It isn't as it stands.
We absolutely had an influence over the EU laws. I can't be bothered to google this for a five year old discussion but it was shown that the UK more often than not got its way in EU law formation.
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
ah I meant/wanted to read that - can you/he repost?
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
Only if the space is policed for legal gender which most changing rooms aren't.
Oh don't be a dimwit. If a man comes in now he is - or can be - challenged. If he can say "I'm a woman" he won't be. And since sexual predators don't come with identifying marks on their forehead, women will have to take the risk that, rather than being a woman, he is an autogynephiliac or a sexual predator or a voyeur or a violent man or just a creep.
And why the fuck should we have to take that risk?
But - again - this is regardless of the gender change process. The control is in how such places are managed and regulated. By gender or by sex. How evidenced. How policed.
Such a person could say they're a woman now. You don't have to carry and show gender id to (eg) access a changing room. If you want to go that route of gender id then, yes, I can see that an easier gender change process based on self-id becomes a logical source of concern.
That's quite a change to bring in to combat the risk you're talking about - that heterosexual male predators will legally become female in order to target women in female spaces.
But if that's the argument it should be made. As it is, the debate is a mess.
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.
It's a view I have heard elsewhere. Why is it wrong?
Well, how is the fact that 1% or so of the population already has Delta supposed to inhibit the spread of Omicron?
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
A covid wave lasts a couple of months, does it not? so if on any given day 1% of the population "has covid" (and I think we have peaked at more like 1.5%) there's also a lot of very recently recovered people around, humming with immune systems and antibodies. I still don't see the point as obviously stupid.
I just told you he was talking about current cases, not previous cases!
But given how these things work, lots of current cases necessarily means, also lots of very recent previous cases. Can't have 1 and not the other.This is not a thought experiment where the bad covid fairy strikes a naive population all at once overnight like Jehovah.
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.
If anyone is James Buchanan then surely it is Cameron?
Boris won the UKs Brexit Civil War so that makes him Lincoln.
Surely he is hoping it has a different ending to Lincoln...
Churchill's more Mr J's hero. But look how he ended up, too.
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
Yes, it's very good. I think Macron would be quite happy to face Zemmour in the run-off.
Zemmour strikes me as French version of a sort of intellectual cross between Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and Tommy Robinson. Nothing like Trump at all.
The piece suggests he hates Anglo Saxons, thinks that D Day landings were a mistake, and that France would have thrown the yoke of the Nazis off anyway. (And maybe Vichy wasn't so bad.)
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
Yes, it's very good. I think Macron would be quite happy to face Zemmour in the run-off.
Zemmour strikes me as French version of a sort of intellectual cross between Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and Tommy Robinson. Nothing like Trump at all.
The piece suggests he hates Anglo Saxons, thinks that D Day landings were a mistake, and that France would have thrown the yoke of the Nazis off anyway. (And maybe Vichy wasn't so bad.)
Yes, though he hates Muslims (in France) even more than he hates Anglo Saxons.
TfL is likely to go bust soon. Is there a sanction against the Mayor allowing this to happen?
Khan has been poor, but I can't quite work out why anyone would want to see him rolled over by the unions.
They need to either raise fares or cut staffing costs. The automated Tube can’t come too late.
I use TFL every day and am happy for a 50% fare increase. Users should pay!
Isn't the Tube already one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive, urban mass transit systems in the world for passengers?
Bring back Livingstone's Fares Fair policy, I say!
The options for a public transport network is to pay for it explicitly (through fares) or implicitly (via subsidies that would need to come from council tax or elsewhere).
Until recently TfL got money from central Government and fares - but the central Government money went a while back (except for Covid) so TfL and the mayor have an issue that they need to fix.
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.
Exactly. You can vote for a party that will drop the mask requirements but today you can't change it. Both vital democratic elements of our society. If enough people agree with you then the party gets in and masks are dropped.
And likewise if you wanted to stay in or leave the EU you can (and did) vote for it but until that time you don't have a direct say in every EU ruling or policy.
That's not good enough in a democracy Topping.
That's like saying you can leave the UK but unless you do you have no say in UK laws. No meaningful UK elections.
If the EU is to be making laws then it should be a genuine democracy. It isn't as it stands.
We absolutely had an influence over the EU laws. I can't be bothered to google this for a five year old discussion but it was shown that the UK more often than not got its way in EU law formation.
Which takes you back to what it means to live in a democracy.
It is not purely about the electoral mechanics.
It is that the existence of the electoral mechanics impels those who rule us to be responsive to public opinion during the intervening periods.
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
Only if the space is policed for legal gender which most changing rooms aren't.
Oh don't be a dimwit. If a man comes in now he is - or can be - challenged. If he can say "I'm a woman" he won't be. And since sexual predators don't come with identifying marks on their forehead, women will have to take the risk that, rather than being a woman, he is an autogynephiliac or a sexual predator or a voyeur or a violent man or just a creep.
And why the fuck should we have to take that risk?
But - again - this is regardless of the gender change process. The control is in how such places are managed and regulated. By gender or by sex. How evidenced. How policed.
Such a person could say they're a woman now. You don't have to carry and show gender id to (eg) access a changing room. If you want to go that route of gender id then, yes, I can see that an easier gender change process based on self-id becomes a logical source of concern.
That's quite a change to bring in to combat the risk you're talking about - that heterosexual male predators will legally become female in order to target women in female spaces.
But if that's the argument it should be made. As it is, the debate is a mess.
I'm not the one who wants any change to the current system under the GRA. It's those who want to make a change who need to think about the risks and come up with solutions. So far, their response is to deny even the possibility of any risks arising. So we're a long way from solutions. When they finally admit the risks then we can have a sensible debate about how to minimise them while being as fair as possible to all involved.
Anyway I need to go now. Thanks for the debate.
On Zemmour there is a good article on him by David Aaronovitch in today's Times.
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
Yes, it's very good. I think Macron would be quite happy to face Zemmour in the run-off.
Zemmour strikes me as French version of a sort of intellectual cross between Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and Tommy Robinson. Nothing like Trump at all.
The piece suggests he hates Anglo Saxons, thinks that D Day landings were a mistake, and that France would have thrown the yoke of the Nazis off anyway. (And maybe Vichy wasn't so bad.)
He comes across as a member of the Marshall Petain Fan Club - so basically, yes.
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?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
I'm not a trans activist btw. I don't post on this anywhere else. My view is easier gender change process, default inclusion, exclusions for certain areas based on evidence and reason not prejudice and ignorance. Other than that, I'm total agnostic. Don't know or understand enough to be otherwise.
Also - @AndyJS, many thanks for that really great piece from Unherd on Zemmour. It should be compulsory reading for anyone commenting on the French election. (And was also extremely well written.)
Yes, it's very good. I think Macron would be quite happy to face Zemmour in the run-off.
Zemmour strikes me as French version of a sort of intellectual cross between Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and Tommy Robinson. Nothing like Trump at all.
The piece suggests he hates Anglo Saxons, thinks that D Day landings were a mistake, and that France would have thrown the yoke of the Nazis off anyway. (And maybe Vichy wasn't so bad.)
"When insulted by a passer-by who raised her digit to home, in Marseille last weekend, he returned the gesture and was heard to mumble “and very deep too”."
As cool as Lord Lovat who was executed in 1747 for his part in the '45:
"The first day , as he was brought to his trial , a woman looked into the coach , and said , “You ugly old dog, don't you think you will have that frightful head cut off?" He replied "You ugly old bitch, I believe I shall.""
Comments
There's a tension between core / periphery, and between different standards applied to different members, and some strange reliance on old theology to justify things being done in todays particular way (the claims for supremacy over Polish national law seem to rely on legal claims going back to 1965 - yet Germany gets away with clipping the wings of EU Law).
And bits of spice such as the 1m Euro a day fines for Poland and Hungary.
And little or no critical media.
Plus the prospect of different views on EU vs NATO. The Eastern edge will not be relying on an EU 'Army' to defend them from Russia, I suspect. Until such an 'army' is proven.
In fact in the last couple of decades, space flight technology has moved forward massively. The next trip to the moon will probably be for a few percent of an Apollo launch...
So, I think it's fair to say Omicron is everywhere.
Which is interesting, because it suggests it is not easily outcompeting Delta.
32/32 boroughs increasing on w/e 27/10 Vs w/e 20/10, from under 1% to mid 20s%, albeit from low levels.
27/10 Vs 20/10 cases by case date = 16% increase
28/10 Vs 21/10 cases by case date > 13% increase (> because 28/10 is not regarded as a final figure)
29/10 Vs 22/10 cases by case date > 22% increase
30/10 Vs 23/10 > 10% increase
The later increases are likely to rise more than the earlier ones.
Could be Omicron, could be cold, could be London correcting from a low base.
But growth there is.
Khan has been poor, but I can't quite work out why anyone would want to see him rolled over by the unions.
Given transmissibility seems to be positively correlated with severity for this virus (as death happens after transmission ceases, and both transmission and severity are really a question of how many cells get subverted), that would offer hope that the current talk of it being milder may have some basis.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
And then first country is declaring it’s won the war whilst staring at second country in trouble, and then it flips round as everyone waves at different times?
NOW LOOK WHAT YOU DONE you’ve got me playing bugs and drugs game I know nothing about!
I’m not an expert sorry
Since 1972 the furthest a human has been from the earth is 350 miles.
It does not feel like an advance in technology at all.
Compare any other form of technology from 1972 to now.
As a child who went to infants and juniors in the 70's and was bought up on the promise of humans exploring the Universe, with Apollo as the first step,its hard to understand that we simply can't leave earth orbit anymore.. I think in my lifetime Apollo will remain the final step.
.
You may be thinking of the Boeing capsule (CST-100) which is still having problems. Though it was partially developed under the original SAA (Space Act Agreements) which were fixed price, the later part of the program was done under FAR.
Because Boeing said that they couldn't get their heads round building something for a given price and it was unfair and could they please have Cost Plus....... despite an actual study that proved that FAR was 5-10x more expensive than SAA. But then, under FAR, congress gets to spread the money around like sweet, soft butter.....
And why the fuck should we have to take that risk?
Found a bit of that data I was looking for.
HGV delivery drivers in UK increased by 30k Q3 over Q2:
The HGV driver shortage has eased significantly in recent months, as almost half the drivers who left the profession during the pandemic have now been recovered, official data shows.
The number of HGV drivers in the UK grew by 30,000 in Q3, reflecting a 40% recovery in the drop in numbers since the beginning of the pandemic, according to the ONS quarterly labour survey released last week.
Kieran Smith, CEO of Driver Require, said it was “startling news” and showed the shortage was moving to “severe” rather than “crisis” levels.
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/technology-and-supply-chain/hgv-driver-shortage-eases-as-hauliers-return-to-workforce/662181.article
@TSE can get his 40 tons of Pineapple Pizza. If he's quick.
Social distancing in pubs/restaurants +44
2m rule +28
Close clubs +21
Rule of 6 indoors +8
No large events +1
Rule of 6 outdoors -23
No household mixing indoors -35
Full lockdown -36
Close pubs/restaurants -45
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1466431813811949586?s=20
Even if you could be infected by only one at a time (which would be news to me), it would reduce it by only 1%.
Of course, previous infections will have produced immunity that could hinder the spread of Omicron, but as the same report pointed out, South Africa is believed to have had a higher percentage of infections than the UK.
Boris won the UKs Brexit Civil War so that makes him Lincoln.
First Column infectious peoples ain’t going to go down much between now and February as most of us don’t give a bloody shit anymore and we are going out shopping and partying whenever we want.
Unlike some people I get to go to heaven because I wear a mask wherever rules say I should. Which mask depends on what my outfit is. I like the Pollockesque (Jackson) that matches my blue micro skirt that’s nearly the same!
Can I post pictures of me in my brilliant masks outfits? How do you attach pictures?
Surely that is wrong.
@cjsnowdon
·
39m
The number of people in hospital with Covid in England has fallen below 6,000. There were more patients at the end of August than there are today. This time last year there were 13,000 - and that was after 3 weeks of lockdown.
It's like how out of control forest fires are more dangerous if there hasn't been any controlled fires recently than if there have been.
If you select one of the images you've uploaded, it offers a variety of example of how to link to the picture.
Copy and paste the "HTML" one into a PB post and it will appear in the post.
And likewise if you wanted to stay in or leave the EU you can (and did) vote for it but until that time you don't have a direct say in every EU ruling or policy.
And I'm very, very concerned about the idea of children..... under 18's .... transitioning without considerable competent psychological counselling.
Having written that, there's a 'lad' at the school one of my teenage granddaughters attends, indeed in her class, who she says regards himself as female, is probably the most competent make-up artist in the class, and, apparently says he's going to 'properly' transition as soon as he can.
I'm not sure how he gets on with games or the games changing rooms. It's private, mainly girls, school and apparently they cope.
TBH, neither Mrs C nor I feel the need to inquire too deeply! Or the desirability of so doing!
But anyway, look, I just don't see the logic.
Unless a place is regulated by legal gender - which few are - I don't see how a man being creepy announcing "I'm a woman" protects him from the consequences.
Do you want to see more places policed by legal gender?
Your entire counter argument is based on something that doesn't exist and cannot be retrospectively created without hurting some people.
My gut is that the PCR numbers undercount the number of mildly symptomatic vaccinated cases out there.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/12/mel-gibson-anti-semitism/620873/
When: If you have had Delta in the last 6 months (ish) you are likely to still have antibody's, if its longer than that then you should still have some level of protection form T-Cells, but not to the same extent, and are more likely to develop some symptoms, and spread the virus, than if it was in the last 6 months.
Who: if you have vaccinated most of your population and then have 5 months where 1% a week catch it, it will have filed in many of the gaps in population, so that a very high amount (93% in the UK by some estimates) have at least some protection, Antibody's, T Cells, or vaccine. but if you do it the other way round, wave of Delta, then vaccine, you don't get the same blanket coverage.
I'm not a virologist, or Doctor of any sort, so this is just my understanding, but I think there are good reasons to not panic, and not overreact until we know a more.
That's like saying you can leave the UK but unless you do you have no say in UK laws. No meaningful UK elections.
If the EU is to be making laws then it should be a genuine democracy. It isn't as it stands.
Suffice to say that the use of untested experimental puberty blockers and other hormones on children followed by surgery which often has the effect of rendering children infertile and unable to orgasm is, IMO, a class action lawsuit and medical negligence case just waiting to happen. It is a horror story.
A boy in my son's class was in a similar position in his mid-teens: good at make up, called himself the female version of his male name, wore women's clothes from time to time etc and thought he might be transgender. Then over time realised he was not and is now happily gay.
The rush to push children towards transition is appalling IMO. The reality may well be that many of them are not transgender at all but gay.
In twenty or thirty years time this will be a big scandal and the govt will be issuing apologies
There was a very good video blog from a driver I saw a little while back. Stuff like turning up with frozen food, on a clock, to discover no-one to take delivery... reduced to ringing every number he had on bits of paper - and getting no answer.
The West Country is used informally to describe south-western portions of England from the British Channel to the English Channel. There is no official definition or boundaries for the West Country. Generally, the region includes the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset. The City and County of Bristol is also considered part of the West Country. Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are also sometimes included as part of the region. The West Country is also known as the South West of England, one of England's nine official regions that covers much of the West Country. The South West comprises of Bristol, Cornwall, Dorset, Devon, Gloucestershire, the Isles of Scilly, Somerset and Wiltshire.
Those are definitions I can live with.
Zemmour strikes me as French version of a sort of intellectual cross between Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and Tommy Robinson. Nothing like Trump at all.
Bring back Livingstone's Fares Fair policy, I say!
Such a person could say they're a woman now. You don't have to carry and show gender id to (eg) access a changing room. If you want to go that route of gender id then, yes, I can see that an easier gender change process based on self-id becomes a logical source of concern.
That's quite a change to bring in to combat the risk you're talking about - that heterosexual male predators will legally become female in order to target women in female spaces.
But if that's the argument it should be made. As it is, the debate is a mess.
Until recently TfL got money from central Government and fares - but the central Government money went a while back (except for Covid) so TfL and the mayor have an issue that they need to fix.
It is not purely about the electoral mechanics.
It is that the existence of the electoral mechanics impels those who rule us to be responsive to public opinion during the intervening periods.
Anyway I need to go now. Thanks for the debate.
On Zemmour there is a good article on him by David Aaronovitch in today's Times.
As cool as Lord Lovat who was executed in 1747 for his part in the '45:
"The first day , as he was brought to his trial , a woman looked into the coach , and said , “You ugly old dog, don't you think you will have that frightful head cut off?" He replied "You ugly old bitch, I believe I shall.""