We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
Well, like I say, most of the time it doesn't matter. But, despite not being a rapist, there are a number of situations when I am excluded on the basis of being a man, for the safety of women or girls. And that's an example of a time when possession, or otherwise, of a cervix does matter. Not because trans people are necessarily more likely to be abusers - just as my exclusion says nothing about my personal likelihood of being an abuser - but because we have found it sadly necessary to take such steps to protect women and girls from the very real risk of assault from men (aka people who don't have a cervix).
Why would we erode such protections in favour of a legal fiction?
The "protections" are a legal fiction in their own right, so that's a weird argument.
There's nothing stopping a man identifying as a man marching into a women's ward/bathroom/etc and attacking people, other than a legal fiction.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
Point of order, it's entirely possible now to create offspring with fewer than or more than two biological parents.
'Tis flyin' in the face of nature, mind
So is eating strawberries in Aberdeenshire in March!
ap;arently it was the ultimate test of Victorian kitchen gardens to be able to produce ripe home grown strawberries in time for Cheltenham.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Now we get all the bollox made up statistics, squirrel look over there crap. You moron it is not about transwomen it is about men pretending they are women so they can get into women's safe places.
Are you this angry about men pretending to be police officers to abuse women?
If the Russians have suffered 7000 fatalities then it naturally follows that there will be thousands of casualties with horrendous injuries. There is some evidence mounting that a disproportionate number of the conscripts are from the remoter parts of Russia like Chechnya and Dagestan. One of the fears of traditionalist Russians has been the declining number of christians and a growing number of Muslims. Which is one reason why they are keen to re-unite with Ukraine. So the plan has been to use ethnic minority footsoldiers to go and kill slavic brothers in Ukraine. Whatever the logic of that is.
Or, more cynically, to send ethnic minority foot soldiers to be killed by their slavic brothers.
Edit: Perhaps Putin is really Russia Trump
The pictures of captured Russian troops look European however.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
Yes, that's the way to do it. Along with highlighting the crazier and nastier examples of actual Wokeness "gone wrong"
And the Tories need to hammer this. Raise awareness
Didn’t single sex wards used to be a Labour campaigning point, or was that the tories?
How are single sex wards a help when all you need to do to get on one is say "I identify as a woman" and don't claim it won't happen as it already does for single sex prisons
This is at the heart of the supposed or real distinction between sex and gender.
How do single sex wards stop murderers if all you have to do to get on a ward is to say "I'm not a murderer"?
I've thought about it a bit more. Maybe we shouldn't allow patients on wards because there is a tiny risk that one of those patients is a murderer? And people that identify as men are far more likely to be murderers than anyone else. So men definitely shouldn't allowed in hospital. Even as doctors. Look at Harold Shipman if you want a concrete example. Don't understand why we still train them in the profession. Too risky.
How amusing and insightful, but an actual woman has been actually, you know, raped, in at least one and allegedly half a dozen other known cases. Raped.
Let's all laugh at your witty little paradox.
No. The point is that this hospital failed to care for the patients who were it's responsibility at every stage, and then tried to cover it up, including trying to blame it on "woke" ideas of letting trans people into a women-only space. That's a ludicrous argument and they should be excoriated for it
Ultimately, the problem is an organisation with
- Zero tolerance for certain kinds of failure - An attempt to codify into rules human behaviour - Mindless implementation of rules. - A coverup attitude
I've tried introducing Just Culture. The fun bit is always after the complex explanations and training, when senior management ask "Where do the gallows go for subordinates who fuck up?"
It's much like Agile - where they often demand a Gantt chart, after say the organisation must "Go Agile!"
Human's are non-linear. That means that humans and human behaviour cannot be codified using simple, linear rule sets. You either have human discretion or results that are farcical and/or insane.
The rule set doesn't matter. Or the purpose.
I take it you've read Dekker's Just Culture
To me, Just Culture needs to be preceded, or at least accompanied by, psychological safety and a complete understanding of complex adaptive systems.
Was at a Dekker conference a few years back with about 200 safety professionals in the room from military through nuclear power through power distribution and rail systems. It was remarkable how few people in the room even knew what a complex adaptive system or emergent properties are.
I would humbly suggest the issue with Just Culture is that it requires unlearning all the experience of a large number of people. Who think they were Born To Be In Charge. They nod politely at silly little ideas, before going back to Proper Managing (aka nailing victims to the wall).
IIRC it was Strathclyde Police who tried to seize the interview tapes from a CAA investigation - when someone tried to explain Just Culture to them, they simply couldn't understand.
I have a slide I use titled "All Change", listing all the attitudes, thinking, practices, structures and methods that need to change in going from 19th Century managing to produce identical widgets to managing to avoid never events in a complex adaptive system where the majority of work is neither pure skills- or rules-based, but rather knowledge-based.
The usual comment is, yes, but that's not the real world. Well, it can be. And we know what happens when you don't try.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
I have thought about this before. Once Scotland becomes independent, is there a way England and Wales can avoid using the word so we can move toward a concept of “the British Isles” and being “British” in the same sense one can be “Mediterranean”? Tricky for the Irish to work with though, I guess, because of history.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
Ooh, a localised pb.com peak! "No such thing as British." One for the connoisseur of the genre.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Now we get all the bollox made up statistics, squirrel look over there crap. You moron it is not about transwomen it is about men pretending they are women so they can get into women's safe places.
Are you this angry about men pretending to be police officers to abuse women?
Yes , I would hang them by the bollox as well.
You spend a lot less time talking about them than you do about trans people.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
Well, like I say, most of the time it doesn't matter. But, despite not being a rapist, there are a number of situations when I am excluded on the basis of being a man, for the safety of women or girls. And that's an example of a time when possession, or otherwise, of a cervix does matter. Not because trans people are necessarily more likely to be abusers - just as my exclusion says nothing about my personal likelihood of being an abuser - but because we have found it sadly necessary to take such steps to protect women and girls from the very real risk of assault from men (aka people who don't have a cervix).
Why would we erode such protections in favour of a legal fiction?
The "protections" are a legal fiction in their own right, so that's a weird argument.
There's nothing stopping a man identifying as a man marching into a women's ward/bathroom/etc and attacking people, other than a legal fiction.
I always read your editorials on PB avidly, but your present one fascinated me because much of this appeared in my book LIFELINE which was published last April. It's great to have someone of your eminence signing from the same hymn book.
My book also draws the contrast with other large industries (aviation, railways, nuclear) where we used to have a quite appalling safety record, but in each case there was a moment of revelation like St Paul on the road to Damascus. Yet in health we blunder on. All of us know that when, in the NHS, one hears a manager or politician say 'lessons have been learned' that in fact the problem has been swept under the carpet. Doctors and nurses have been marginalised.
If anyone wants to talk to me about the subject or ask me to give a talk anywhere (within reason) or write an article on this, please feel free to email me, barrymonk@doctors.org.uk
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Jesus
Do you seriously think that the "woman" in the nhs case was in any real sense trans?
Neither of your studies asked about assaults perpetrated *by* trans women, nor could expect to receive a useful answer if it did, but you cite them both as evidence of the assault/be assaulted imbalance. Why?
Why? Because the implication by some of you on here is that all trans people are nasty perverts and potential rapists, when in actual fact the vast majority are far more likely to be victims of assault and sexual assault, statistically far more so than women born in that gender. They are deserving of protection too. Protections they might not receive if they are forced into "male" spaces.
I made no specific comment on the NHS case.
Not one person has said that, you are fantasising.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Um, I know comparisons with Nazis are not usually a productive contribution to internet debates, but I do encourage you to investigate which books exactly were being burnt in the most famous Nazi book burning photographs.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
Well, like I say, most of the time it doesn't matter. But, despite not being a rapist, there are a number of situations when I am excluded on the basis of being a man, for the safety of women or girls. And that's an example of a time when possession, or otherwise, of a cervix does matter. Not because trans people are necessarily more likely to be abusers - just as my exclusion says nothing about my personal likelihood of being an abuser - but because we have found it sadly necessary to take such steps to protect women and girls from the very real risk of assault from men (aka people who don't have a cervix).
Why would we erode such protections in favour of a legal fiction?
The "protections" are a legal fiction in their own right, so that's a weird argument.
There's nothing stopping a man identifying as a man marching into a women's ward/bathroom/etc and attacking people, other than a legal fiction.
What fiction is that, then?
A sign on the door saying "women only" isn't going to stop anyone.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
I don't think this complex.
Some people have gender reassignment surgery, and go through horrendous hormone treatments, and no particular threat to people of their new sex. These people get to take on their new sex, and if you wish to call them transgender you can.
If you have not gone through this process (but are on the path), then you get to call yourself 'transitioning'. They do not get access to safe spaces for their non-birth gender - such as prisons, bathrooms, changing rooms, or the like.
I would suggest that we encourage a small number of bathrooms, etc., as private spaces where those who have modesty issues or are transitioning and feel uncomfortable can use.
Problem solved.
Quite.
That, plus reserve womens sport for birth women, and beef up safeguards to ensure the young don't do anything really, really irreversible until they are really, really sure about it, and problem 100% solved.
Completely agree with you both. Should be dead easy, then you apply the basic “don’t be a dick about it” rule.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
I don't think this complex.
Some people have gender reassignment surgery, and go through horrendous hormone treatments, and no particular threat to people of their new sex. These people get to take on their new sex, and if you wish to call them transgender you can.
If you have not gone through this process (but are on the path), then you get to call yourself 'transitioning'. They do not get access to safe spaces for their non-birth gender - such as prisons, bathrooms, changing rooms, or the like.
I would suggest that we encourage a small number of bathrooms, etc., as private spaces where those who have modesty issues or are transitioning and feel uncomfortable can use.
Problem solved.
That all sounds cool to me. I imagine most of the country would Nod and say Yes, that's common sense
But it absolutely is not accepted by a large minority of vocal people, and, for want of a better word, they are The Woke. The mad Woke left, and they tend to be the people most obsessed with this, making careers out of it, so they become diversity officers and they write gender rules (for the NHS?) and they run charities like Stonewall and that way they steer the whole of society towards a place most of us find deeply uncomfortable, if not insane, where a woman who was raped is told she was not raped: because, trans
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
In old money it is a man who dresses as a woman
So, a Scotsman?
That remark is reckless to the point of foolishness. It might even get you kilt.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Um, I know comparisons with Nazis are not usually a productive contribution to internet debates, but I do encourage you to investigate which books exactly were being burnt in the most famous Nazi book burning photographs.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
But it sounds mad to everyone else. Which isn't good for Keir "Sanity" Starmer. That's the point
And this?
"Yvette Cooper has become the second shadow cabinet minister in two days to decline to define what a woman is, describing the subject as a “rabbit hole”.
The shadow home secretary refused three times to spell out a definition"
Yes, because the people asking the question are being disengenuous - they don’t care about the actual answer, they’re just setting a trap & intend to close it upon the answerer.
& the reality is that it’s impossible to give an answer that isn’t exlusionary, because nouns are never precisely defined objects. Think of something “simple” like, say, “chair”. Can you define what a chair is in a way that includes all the things that people refer to as chairs, but is not so completely fuzzy as to be useless? How about “sandwich” ? (cue the: is a hotdog a sandwich war...) You may claim, ah ha! but for people we can resort to genetics: Manliness is in the genes! Except not - there are people with XY genes out there who have had multiple children. Are they men now? What about intersex people ? And so on.
Trying to nail down what defines a “women” or a “man” is a quasi-fascistic act. It excludes more than it includes - we’re already seeing “manly”-appearing women being challenged in female toilets because for some people they’re crossing some arbitrary line about how feminine you have to be there, something that they report experiencing only in the last few years as anti-trans rhetoric has ramped up in this country.
This is a path that can only get worse from here & I don’t think it’s one we ought to be taking
Well Labour needs to come up with some form of answer because it just makes them appear mad. They can't simply refuse to answer it forever
Same goes for the Tories, of course. Tho they have much less of a problem as they are not seen as the source of Wokeness
The people asking the question, as Phil says, are being disingenuous, and you’re one of them.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
Well, like I say, most of the time it doesn't matter. But, despite not being a rapist, there are a number of situations when I am excluded on the basis of being a man, for the safety of women or girls. And that's an example of a time when possession, or otherwise, of a cervix does matter. Not because trans people are necessarily more likely to be abusers - just as my exclusion says nothing about my personal likelihood of being an abuser - but because we have found it sadly necessary to take such steps to protect women and girls from the very real risk of assault from men (aka people who don't have a cervix).
Why would we erode such protections in favour of a legal fiction?
The "protections" are a legal fiction in their own right, so that's a weird argument.
There's nothing stopping a man identifying as a man marching into a women's ward/bathroom/etc and attacking people, other than a legal fiction.
What fiction is that, then?
The fact that there are laws against assault, obviously. Legal fictions that influence human behaviour...
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Jesus
Do you seriously think that the "woman" in the nhs case was in any real sense trans?
Neither of your studies asked about assaults perpetrated *by* trans women, nor could expect to receive a useful answer if it did, but you cite them both as evidence of the assault/be assaulted imbalance. Why?
Why? Because the implication by some of you on here is that all trans people are nasty perverts and potential rapists, when in actual fact the vast majority are far more likely to be victims of assault and sexual assault, statistically far more so than women born in that gender. They are deserving of protection too. Protections they might not receive if they are forced into "male" spaces.
I made no specific comment on the NHS case.
you are very good at the cross and shouty thing, but you are making errors of logic and comprehension that would guarantee a fail in 11 plus.
do you think, or do you think that any one of "you on here" thinks, that the self dentifying women who rape women in hospitals and prisons are ever in fact trans women?
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
Well, like I say, most of the time it doesn't matter. But, despite not being a rapist, there are a number of situations when I am excluded on the basis of being a man, for the safety of women or girls. And that's an example of a time when possession, or otherwise, of a cervix does matter. Not because trans people are necessarily more likely to be abusers - just as my exclusion says nothing about my personal likelihood of being an abuser - but because we have found it sadly necessary to take such steps to protect women and girls from the very real risk of assault from men (aka people who don't have a cervix).
Why would we erode such protections in favour of a legal fiction?
The "protections" are a legal fiction in their own right, so that's a weird argument.
There's nothing stopping a man identifying as a man marching into a women's ward/bathroom/etc and attacking people, other than a legal fiction.
This discussion has been started by a case in a hospital ward, where patients don't generally choose which ward they are placed onto.
The logic of your argument is not to bother having separate male/female bathrooms at all, which, weirdly, is not what happens.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
I have thought about this before. Once Scotland becomes independent, is there a way England and Wales can avoid using the word so we can move toward a concept of “the British Isles” and being “British” in the same sense one can be “Mediterranean”? Tricky for the Irish to work with though, I guess, because of history.
makes sense, I am Scottish , born in Scotland which is a country in the British Isles. Simple , you can substitute any other country in teh British Isles should you have been born there.
Whether Putin is a neo-Commie or neo-Nazi is IMHO arguing about semantics.
"Now you're talking semantics. What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years... at the end of which they tell you to piss off? Ending up in some retirement village... hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time. Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?" - Steve Buscemi in "Con Air" (1997).
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
But it sounds mad to everyone else. Which isn't good for Keir "Sanity" Starmer. That's the point
And this?
"Yvette Cooper has become the second shadow cabinet minister in two days to decline to define what a woman is, describing the subject as a “rabbit hole”.
The shadow home secretary refused three times to spell out a definition"
Yes, because the people asking the question are being disengenuous - they don’t care about the actual answer, they’re just setting a trap & intend to close it upon the answerer.
& the reality is that it’s impossible to give an answer that isn’t exlusionary, because nouns are never precisely defined objects. Think of something “simple” like, say, “chair”. Can you define what a chair is in a way that includes all the things that people refer to as chairs, but is not so completely fuzzy as to be useless? How about “sandwich” ? (cue the: is a hotdog a sandwich war...) You may claim, ah ha! but for people we can resort to genetics: Manliness is in the genes! Except not - there are people with XY genes out there who have had multiple children. Are they men now? What about intersex people ? And so on.
Trying to nail down what defines a “women” or a “man” is a quasi-fascistic act. It excludes more than it includes - we’re already seeing “manly”-appearing women being challenged in female toilets because for some people they’re crossing some arbitrary line about how feminine you have to be there, something that they report experiencing only in the last few years as anti-trans rhetoric has ramped up in this country.
This is a path that can only get worse from here & I don’t think it’s one we ought to be taking
Well Labour needs to come up with some form of answer because it just makes them appear mad. They can't simply refuse to answer it forever
Same goes for the Tories, of course. Tho they have much less of a problem as they are not seen as the source of Wokeness
The people asking the question, as Phil says, are being disingenuous, and you’re one of them.
No, I'm not. I readily admit that ONE reason I pursue this point is because I know it is damaging for the Left. That's not disingenuous, I am open about it
But I also care deeply about this topic. I despise the Woke Left (as you might have noticed) and anything that exposes the madness of Wokeness and halts its poisonous advance into our discourse is to be welcomed. That is the far more important battle
Labour getting humiliated and beaten again would be a happy by product
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
Well, like I say, most of the time it doesn't matter. But, despite not being a rapist, there are a number of situations when I am excluded on the basis of being a man, for the safety of women or girls. And that's an example of a time when possession, or otherwise, of a cervix does matter. Not because trans people are necessarily more likely to be abusers - just as my exclusion says nothing about my personal likelihood of being an abuser - but because we have found it sadly necessary to take such steps to protect women and girls from the very real risk of assault from men (aka people who don't have a cervix).
Why would we erode such protections in favour of a legal fiction?
The "protections" are a legal fiction in their own right, so that's a weird argument.
There's nothing stopping a man identifying as a man marching into a women's ward/bathroom/etc and attacking people, other than a legal fiction.
What fiction is that, then?
A sign on the door saying "women only" isn't going to stop anyone.
You are not just being obtuse you are being truculent. You are in fact a very naughty boy.
Two weeks ago, Alani Iyanuoluwa fled Kyiv as the Russian invasion intensified. Making her way across Europe, the 24-year-old hoped to be reunited with family in London. Yet for 10 days she has been stranded in a French port – because she is Nigerian.
Iyanuoluwa is among a growing number of refugees who claim the British government is ignoring black people who fled Ukraine.
Their experiences have again raised the issue of race and the UK’s welcome to refugees, prompting claims that ministers would never have unveiled last week’s humanitarian sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians had it not been aimed at white Europeans.
This is from the Guardian today. They are back on form. A Nigerian living in Kiev is in France, a safe country. Nigeria is a safe country to which she has a right to return. From the Guardian's point of view the UK is to blame, because she has family members in London.
Top performance from the Guardian. Maybe there are other facts that change things but on the details given this is not very impressive
Boris Johnson was at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner attended by at least one donor with links to Russia on the night Vladimir Putin launched his war in Ukraine.
The prime minister gave a short speech at the event in central London as it became clear the Russian invasion was imminent, allegedly telling guests he had to leave early to deal with the crisis.
The event began on February 23 at about 8pm and was held at Spencer House, a Grade I listed building a mile from Downing Street.
It took place despite days of repeated warnings — including from Johnson personally — that the invasion appeared imminent, and only hours before Volodymyr Zelensky delivered an address in a last-ditch attempt to avert the war.
His plea was ignored and at 5am the next day Russian troops began their three-pronged offensive.
A few hours earlier, in London, Johnson was the star attraction at a dinner attended by about 75 people. They included dozens of wealthy party donors and a number of ministers, among them Michael Gove, the levelling-up secretary, and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary.
Other ministers were invited but did not attend, making excuses or citing diary commitments.
According to insiders, high-profile donors seen at the event included Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a former Russian deputy finance minister.
Boris Johnson was at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner attended by at least one donor with links to Russia on the night Vladimir Putin launched his war in Ukraine.
The prime minister gave a short speech at the event in central London as it became clear the Russian invasion was imminent, allegedly telling guests he had to leave early to deal with the crisis.
The event began on February 23 at about 8pm and was held at Spencer House, a Grade I listed building a mile from Downing Street.
It took place despite days of repeated warnings — including from Johnson personally — that the invasion appeared imminent, and only hours before Volodymyr Zelensky delivered an address in a last-ditch attempt to avert the war.
His plea was ignored and at 5am the next day Russian troops began their three-pronged offensive.
A few hours earlier, in London, Johnson was the star attraction at a dinner attended by about 75 people. They included dozens of wealthy party donors and a number of ministers, among them Michael Gove, the levelling-up secretary, and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary.
Other ministers were invited but did not attend, making excuses or citing diary commitments.
According to insiders, high-profile donors seen at the event included Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a former Russian deputy finance minister.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
No such thing as being 'born British'. Malcy was presumably born a subject of the UK. 'British' is what we are almost now, the way Mr Johnson is dicking around with the Six Counties of the north bit of Ireland.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Now we get all the bollox made up statistics, squirrel look over there crap. You moron it is not about transwomen it is about men pretending they are women so they can get into women's safe places.
Are you this angry about men pretending to be police officers to abuse women?
Yes , I would hang them by the bollox as well.
You spend a lot less time talking about them than you do about trans people.
I don't ever talk about trans people, I am concerned about deviants who dress as women to enable them to attack women, totally different thing sunshine. If some men want to dress up far be it from me to comment on it.
Two weeks ago, Alani Iyanuoluwa fled Kyiv as the Russian invasion intensified. Making her way across Europe, the 24-year-old hoped to be reunited with family in London. Yet for 10 days she has been stranded in a French port – because she is Nigerian.
Iyanuoluwa is among a growing number of refugees who claim the British government is ignoring black people who fled Ukraine.
Their experiences have again raised the issue of race and the UK’s welcome to refugees, prompting claims that ministers would never have unveiled last week’s humanitarian sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians had it not been aimed at white Europeans.
This is from the Guardian today. They are back on form. A Nigerian living in Kiev is in France, a safe country. Nigeria is a safe country to which she has a right to return. From the Guardian's point of view the UK is to blame, because she has family members in London.
Top performance from the Guardian. Maybe there are other facts that change things but on the details given this is not very impressive
White Europeans from Afghanistan?
All refugees set to have a Ukrainian-style welcome
Members of the public will be asked to offer their homes to refugees from other countries including Afghanistan under plans being considered by ministers after the “overwhelming” response to the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
More than 150,000 people have offered to take in a Ukrainian refugee since the government launched the scheme on Monday.
Government insiders said they expected this to outstrip the number of Ukrainians who want to come to the UK but do not want to waste the offers.
Ministers want to use the scheme to try to resettle other refugees, which could include thousands of Afghans still living in hotels seven months after they were evacuated from Kabul after Britain’s withdrawal. A minister said: “We’re considering it.”
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Um, I know comparisons with Nazis are not usually a productive contribution to internet debates, but I do encourage you to investigate which books exactly were being burnt in the most famous Nazi book burning photographs.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
Probably a few treatises on habitual and relentless masturbation in there too. I feel your pain.
Nobody has said anything about the trans. The problem is fakers who are enabled by thick virtue signallers like you
If we are doing 20th century history, incidentally, can you guess which darling of the left this is?
X was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common. ...Daphne Patai said: "Of course he was homophobic. That has nothing to do with his relations with his homosexual friends. Certainly, he had a negative attitude and a certain kind of anxiety, a denigrating attitude towards homosexuality. That is definitely the case. I think his writing reflects that quite fully."
X used the homophobic epithets "nancy" and "pansy", such in his expressions of contempt for what he called the "pansy Left", and "nancy poets", i.e. left-wing homosexual or bisexual writers and intellectuals such as Stephen Spender and W. H. Auden."
I think the right has distanced itself from the German Student Union of the 1930s...
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
Two weeks ago, Alani Iyanuoluwa fled Kyiv as the Russian invasion intensified. Making her way across Europe, the 24-year-old hoped to be reunited with family in London. Yet for 10 days she has been stranded in a French port – because she is Nigerian.
Iyanuoluwa is among a growing number of refugees who claim the British government is ignoring black people who fled Ukraine.
Their experiences have again raised the issue of race and the UK’s welcome to refugees, prompting claims that ministers would never have unveiled last week’s humanitarian sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians had it not been aimed at white Europeans.
This is from the Guardian today. They are back on form. A Nigerian living in Kiev is in France, a safe country. Nigeria is a safe country to which she has a right to return. From the Guardian's point of view the UK is to blame, because she has family members in London.
Top performance from the Guardian. Maybe there are other facts that change things but on the details given this is not very impressive
White Europeans from Afghanistan?
All refugees set to have a Ukrainian-style welcome
Members of the public will be asked to offer their homes to refugees from other countries including Afghanistan under plans being considered by ministers after the “overwhelming” response to the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
More than 150,000 people have offered to take in a Ukrainian refugee since the government launched the scheme on Monday.
Government insiders said they expected this to outstrip the number of Ukrainians who want to come to the UK but do not want to waste the offers.
Ministers want to use the scheme to try to resettle other refugees, which could include thousands of Afghans still living in hotels seven months after they were evacuated from Kabul after Britain’s withdrawal. A minister said: “We’re considering it.”
Interesting that HMG is confirming what I predicted last night. We won't even get 150,000 Ukrainian refugees. I'd be surprised if we get 100,000. They don't want to come all this way, from their homes in Ukraine, and there is no big Ukrainians diaspora here to make them feel more welcome
I always read your editorials on PB avidly, but your present one fascinated me because much of this appeared in my book LIFELINE which was published last April. It's great to have someone of your eminence signing from the same hymn book.
My book also draws the contrast with other large industries (aviation, railways, nuclear) where we used to have a quite appalling safety record, but in each case there was a moment of revelation like St Paul on the road to Damascus. Yet in health we blunder on. All of us know that when, in the NHS, one hears a manager or politician say 'lessons have been learned' that in fact the problem has been swept under the carpet. Doctors and nurses have been marginalised.
If anyone wants to talk to me about the subject or ask me to give a talk anywhere (within reason) or write an article on this, please feel free to email me, barrymonk@doctors.org.uk
Well done, Barry.
I read your book and enjoyed it thoroughly. You put a sensible and well-balanced view.
Neither you nor I are anti-NHS. We are a long way from it. Yet as you indicate convincingly there has been an obstinate refusal to accept the kind of safety procedures which are routine in other high risk occupations and industries.
That is the nub of the issue, one which the medical profession itself seems reluctant to address.
May I just add that my daughter was sexually interfered with by our local GP, Dr Alan Tutin, when she was sixteen. It was a fairly minor case and I never heard anything about it until about seven years later when she was one of a number of women who voluntairly submitted evidence to the GMC in support of another local girl who had been much more seriously assaulted by him.
The GMC threw the case out, which surprised me because it implied that my daughter and numerous other impartial and well-educated young women were lying.
Many years later, in 2019, he was convicted at the Old Bailey in a high profile case at which my daughter again gave evidence.
He had of course been practicing in the interim. We can only guess at the number of victims he assaulted between the two hearings, but I think it is fair to say it was likely to have been a lot.
What lessons do we draw? In Tutin's case it is very simple. The GMC is a trade union, which defends its members regardless. Its responsibilities to the public are a secondary issue, if that.
I see no evidence that it has changed its ways as a result of my daughter's case, or any of those you mention. I do not see any reason to think it will change unless forced to do so. It has a deeply entrenched posiiton and there is little pressure on it to show the same concern for you and me as it does for its members.
Please note, you are incorrect to describe the GMC as a trade union. It is not. The GMC is a statutory regulator. The medical trades unions are the BMA, the HCSA and a number of more recent breakaway. They have no regulatory power.
The GMC does have medical representation, but these are appointed by the government rather than elected by Doctors, and are not in a majority because of Lay representation.
There is a lot wrong with the GMC, but it is certainly not protective of doctors, indeed one of the recent major criticisms is the large number of doctors who commit suicide when up before it's Kafka-esque procedures.
I am sorry to hear of your daughters experiences, but to depict the GMC as a trade union protective of doctors is Putinesque in its departure from truth.
Noted with thanks and I stand corrected, but the fact remains that the hearing she attended more than twenty years ago dismissed her evidence and also that of a number of other perfectly sensible and mature young women. Their evidence was not accepted. They preferred Dr Tutin's instead.
How does that happen?
The same way some court cases don't necessarily always go the right way. The hearings are heard and a judgement made on the evidence
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
Nope. Europe is a continent (big bit). The British Isles are islands (small, non continental bits). Your half-grasp of the theory of plate tectonics does not alter this.
Whether Putin is a neo-Commie or neo-Nazi is IMHO arguing about semantics.
"Now you're talking semantics. What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years... at the end of which they tell you to piss off? Ending up in some retirement village... hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time. Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?" - Steve Buscemi in "Con Air" (1997).
He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.
Johnson's comments on Ukraine/Brexit are of course just another example of why he is unfit to be prime minister. At some point I hope a biographer will be able to explain the contradictions of a politician who on the one hand had the ability to connect with ordinary people and yet at the same time was prone to the most crass misjudgments.
The broader point is that it smacks of desperation. He fought the last on the platform of 'get Brexit done'. Is the campaign for the next election going to be 'got Brexit done?' Does he actually have anything else constructive to offer or will he just remind us that Starmer was a Remainer and can't be trusted not to take us back into the single market? There is still no answer to the Irish problem and as for all the 'freedoms' won by the Brexit vote, do we intend to do anything with them or not?
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
We have a route whereby people can legally change their gender from the one they were born with. Therefore transgender is recognized here. As it is in most countries.
The debate is should that process be made quicker and easier. And what controls are needed to ensure fairness and safety for women - eg pro sports, prisons, refuges.
That's it. That's the essence of this. Unfortunately 90% of commentary on it goes over the hills and far away.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
Nope. Europe is a continent (big bit). The British Isles are islands (small, non continental bits). Your half-grasp of the theory of plate tectonics does not alter this.
Isles of Britain and Ireland is increasingly the appropriate expression (I'm actually surprised it's taken so long).
Whether Putin is a neo-Commie or neo-Nazi is IMHO arguing about semantics.
"Now you're talking semantics. What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years... at the end of which they tell you to piss off? Ending up in some retirement village... hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time. Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?" - Steve Buscemi in "Con Air" (1997).
He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.
We were talking about Stalingrad, how cold it was, and we would do anything, *anything*, to warm ourselves up. We would throw live grenades to each other. Pull the pin, throw it to the prisoners. They'd be jumping around like drunken whores.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
True, but Malky is true red white and blue. Probably hums GSTQ in his sleep.
You've got his domicile mixed up - Larkhall isn't in Ayrshire, where he bides.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Jesus
Do you seriously think that the "woman" in the nhs case was in any real sense trans?
Neither of your studies asked about assaults perpetrated *by* trans women, nor could expect to receive a useful answer if it did, but you cite them both as evidence of the assault/be assaulted imbalance. Why?
Why? Because the implication by some of you on here is that all trans people are nasty perverts and potential rapists, when in actual fact the vast majority are far more likely to be victims of assault and sexual assault, statistically far more so than women born in that gender. They are deserving of protection too. Protections they might not receive if they are forced into "male" spaces.
I made no specific comment on the NHS case.
you are very good at the cross and shouty thing, but you are making errors of logic and comprehension that would guarantee a fail in 11 plus.
do you think, or do you think that any one of "you on here" thinks, that the self dentifying women who rape women in hospitals and prisons are ever in fact trans women?
What I'm getting at is there is a certain kind of gender essentialist who will gladly point at outlying and rare cases of men pretending to be women in order to demonise transgender women, when in actual fact statistically transgender people are at an extremely elevated risk of becoming victims of assault or sexual assault themselves. That risk is greatly increased when they are exposed as transgender.
For example. Let's say there's a completely female-passing individual who has lived as a woman for eight years, been on hormone therapy for six, got breast implants four years ago, but has only recently gotten to the top of the NHS waiting list for vaginoplasty, which happens next month. Now, do we insist they use the male bathroom up until next month, when their penis gets removed, or do we apply some common sense, and say that such a person is far more likely to be the victim of an assault or sexual assault if they are forced into a "male" toilet or changing room?
As ever, it is the marginal cases that cause us difficulty. Sticking with the example above, do we allow them to use the women's toilet only when they look indistinguishable from a natural born woman? For some people that never happens, even when they've had their tallywhacker removed. So are they still a man? Or do we say it's only allowable on the onset of hormone treatment? Or after two years of hormone treatment?
What this means is that there is always going to be an element of gatekeeping. The trans rights advocates who argue anyone should be able to self-certify are, of course, wrong, because it allows dangerous men to take advantage of the system. However, the gender essentialists who argue, like Malc, that trans women are just "men who dress as women" are also wrong.
In a normal world we would apply a bit of common sense with a non-judgemental vetting process as part of the transition process that certifies trans women relatively early on in their transition, with marginal cases required to use gender neutral spaces until they've passed the vetting process.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
I have thought about this before. Once Scotland becomes independent, is there a way England and Wales can avoid using the word so we can move toward a concept of “the British Isles” and being “British” in the same sense one can be “Mediterranean”? Tricky for the Irish to work with though, I guess, because of history.
Scotland is not becoming independent.
However we will always be British ie the 3 nations of England, Scotland and Wales.
Even President Biden was talking about Great Britain and Ireland when he met the Irish PM on St Patrick's Day last week and their response to the Ukraine. Though technically he should have said Great Britain and NI or the UK and Ireland (or the Republic of Ireland) though we all know he is very much pro a united Ireland as per his Catholic Irish heritage even if he does not say so openly
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
Nope. Europe is a continent (big bit). The British Isles are islands (small, non continental bits). Your half-grasp of the theory of plate tectonics does not alter this.
I definitely don't want to cross you on plate tectonics. I'm just dealing with the Atlas definitions. Britain is assigned geographically as part of Europe. And Scotland as part of Britain. If Scotland leaves the UK, it will not have upped and joined New Zealand, geographically it will still be part of Britain.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
I have thought about this before. Once Scotland becomes independent, is there a way England and Wales can avoid using the word so we can move toward a concept of “the British Isles” and being “British” in the same sense one can be “Mediterranean”? Tricky for the Irish to work with though, I guess, because of history.
Scotland is not becoming independent.
However we will always be British ie the 3 nations of England, Scotland and Wales.
Even President Biden was talking about Great Britain and Ireland when he met the Irish PM on St Patrick's Day last week and their response to the Ukraine. Though technically he should have said Great Britain and NI or the UK and Ireland (or the Republic of Ireland) though we all know he is very much pro a united Ireland as per his Catholic Irish heritage even if he does not say so openly
Wales a nation: Henry VIII would be ever so angry to hear you say that.
Anyway, night all: sun over the yardarm so time to find the wine and olive pate stuff to put on toast.
Whether Putin is a neo-Commie or neo-Nazi is IMHO arguing about semantics.
"Now you're talking semantics. What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years... at the end of which they tell you to piss off? Ending up in some retirement village... hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time. Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?" - Steve Buscemi in "Con Air" (1997).
He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.
We were talking about Stalingrad, how cold it was, and we would do anything, *anything*, to warm ourselves up. We would throw live grenades to each other. Pull the pin, throw it to the prisoners. They'd be jumping around like drunken whores.
A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Um, I know comparisons with Nazis are not usually a productive contribution to internet debates, but I do encourage you to investigate which books exactly were being burnt in the most famous Nazi book burning photographs.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
Probably a few treatises on habitual and relentless masturbation in there too. I feel your pain.
Nobody has said anything about the trans. The problem is fakers who are enabled by thick virtue signallers like you
If we are doing 20th century history, incidentally, can you guess which darling of the left this is?
X was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common. ...Daphne Patai said: "Of course he was homophobic. That has nothing to do with his relations with his homosexual friends. Certainly, he had a negative attitude and a certain kind of anxiety, a denigrating attitude towards homosexuality. That is definitely the case. I think his writing reflects that quite fully."
X used the homophobic epithets "nancy" and "pansy", such in his expressions of contempt for what he called the "pansy Left", and "nancy poets", i.e. left-wing homosexual or bisexual writers and intellectuals such as Stephen Spender and W. H. Auden."
I think the right has distanced itself from the German Student Union of the 1930s...
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
But it sounds mad to everyone else. Which isn't good for Keir "Sanity" Starmer. That's the point
And this?
"Yvette Cooper has become the second shadow cabinet minister in two days to decline to define what a woman is, describing the subject as a “rabbit hole”.
The shadow home secretary refused three times to spell out a definition"
You know, for somebody calling me "intellectually incurious" you show a stubborn determination to avoid grasping a pretty simple argument.
Or is it you do get it and all you're doing is celebrating the ignorance and confusion around this question because you deduce it damages Labour? Hmm. Yes, I think I have that as slight favourite. Bright guy like you.
Cooper? Understandable from her. She's worked out it's a lose/lose because of the tedious bad faith twisting of any response.
But again it's easy. A woman is an adult of the female gender, the vast majority being born that way.
What's your "Tory" definition of a woman? Is it different?
"A woman is an adult of the female gender, the vast majority being born that way."
That's convoluted, but it's not a bad answer to the question, in the circumstances
Why didn't Cooper use it? Because there are plenty of Wokier people in her party who find fault
If you find that 'convoluted' I'm surprised you get through much book-learning!
But c'mon, you dodged it. What's your Tory definition?
Don't give me a cheap joke like "a woman's a woman" - I'm interested.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Jesus
Do you seriously think that the "woman" in the nhs case was in any real sense trans?
Neither of your studies asked about assaults perpetrated *by* trans women, nor could expect to receive a useful answer if it did, but you cite them both as evidence of the assault/be assaulted imbalance. Why?
Why? Because the implication by some of you on here is that all trans people are nasty perverts and potential rapists, when in actual fact the vast majority are far more likely to be victims of assault and sexual assault, statistically far more so than women born in that gender. They are deserving of protection too. Protections they might not receive if they are forced into "male" spaces.
I made no specific comment on the NHS case.
you are very good at the cross and shouty thing, but you are making errors of logic and comprehension that would guarantee a fail in 11 plus.
do you think, or do you think that any one of "you on here" thinks, that the self dentifying women who rape women in hospitals and prisons are ever in fact trans women?
What I'm getting at is there is a certain kind of gender essentialist who will gladly point at outlying and rare cases of men pretending to be women in order to demonise transgender women, when in actual fact statistically transgender people are at an extremely elevated risk of becoming victims of assault or sexual assault themselves. That risk is greatly increased when they are exposed as transgender.
For example. Let's say there's a completely female-passing individual who has lived as a woman for eight years, been on hormone therapy for six, got breast implants four years ago, but has only recently gotten to the top of the NHS waiting list for vaginoplasty, which happens next month. Now, do we insist they use the male bathroom up until next month, when their penis gets removed, or do we apply some common sense, and say that such a person is far more likely to be the victim of an assault or sexual assault if they are forced into a "male" toilet or changing room?
As ever, it is the marginal cases that cause us difficulty. Sticking with the example above, do we allow them to use the women's toilet only when they look indistinguishable from a natural born woman? For some people that never happens, even when they've had their tallywhacker removed. So are they still a man? Or do we say it's only allowable on the onset of hormone treatment? Or after two years of hormone treatment?
What this means is that there is always going to be an element of gatekeeping. The trans rights advocates who argue anyone should be able to self-certify are, of course, wrong, because it allows dangerous men to take advantage of the system. However, the gender essentialists who argue, like Malc, that trans women are just "men who dress as women" are also wrong.
In a normal world we would apply a bit of common sense with a non-judgemental vetting process as part of the transition process that certifies trans women relatively early on in their transition, with marginal cases required to use gender neutral spaces until they've passed the vetting process.
Life is too short to read any of that, but try to get it into your head that being against people who pretend to be trans is a different thing from being against people who are actually trans. Different. Not the same. Not somewhere on the same spectrum, but really different. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be "anti trans" but if I were I'd be cheering the fakers on, because the people they are doing most damage too, other than their actual rape victims, are the genuinely trans.
May I just add that my daughter was sexually interfered with by our local GP, Dr Alan Tutin, when she was sixteen. It was a fairly minor case and I never heard anything about it until about seven years later when she was one of a number of women who voluntairly submitted evidence to the GMC in support of another local girl who had been much more seriously assaulted by him.
The GMC threw the case out, which surprised me because it implied that my daughter and numerous other impartial and well-educated young women were lying.
Many years later, in 2019, he was convicted at the Old Bailey in a high profile case at which my daughter again gave evidence.
He had of course been practicing in the interim. We can only guess at the number of victims he assaulted between the two hearings, but I think it is fair to say it was likely to have been a lot.
What lessons do we draw? In Tutin's case it is very simple. The GMC is a trade union, which defends its members regardless. Its responsibilities to the public are a secondary issue, if that.
I see no evidence that it has changed its ways as a result of my daughter's case, or any of those you mention. I do not see any reason to think it will change unless forced to do so. It has a deeply entrenched posiiton and there is little pressure on it to show the same concern for you and me as it does for its members.
Please note, you are incorrect to describe the GMC as a trade union. It is not. The GMC is a statutory regulator. The medical trades unions are the BMA, the HCSA and a number of more recent breakaway. They have no regulatory power.
The GMC does have medical representation, but these are appointed by the government rather than elected by Doctors, and are not in a majority because of Lay representation.
There is a lot wrong with the GMC, but it is certainly not protective of doctors, indeed one of the recent major criticisms is the large number of doctors who commit suicide when up before it's Kafka-esque procedures.
I am sorry to hear of your daughters experiences, but to depict the GMC as a trade union protective of doctors is Putinesque in its departure from truth.
Noted with thanks and I stand corrected, but the fact remains that the hearing she attended more than twenty years ago dismissed her evidence and also that of a number of other perfectly sensible and mature young women. Their evidence was not accepted. They preferred Dr Tutin's instead.
How does that happen?
The same way some court cases don't necessarily always go the right way. The hearings are heard and a judgement made on the evidence
If that had been the case, Hyufd, he would have been taken out of circulayion twenty years before he was.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Um, I know comparisons with Nazis are not usually a productive contribution to internet debates, but I do encourage you to investigate which books exactly were being burnt in the most famous Nazi book burning photographs.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
Probably a few treatises on habitual and relentless masturbation in there too. I feel your pain.
Nobody has said anything about the trans. The problem is fakers who are enabled by thick virtue signallers like you
If we are doing 20th century history, incidentally, can you guess which darling of the left this is?
X was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common. ...Daphne Patai said: "Of course he was homophobic. That has nothing to do with his relations with his homosexual friends. Certainly, he had a negative attitude and a certain kind of anxiety, a denigrating attitude towards homosexuality. That is definitely the case. I think his writing reflects that quite fully."
X used the homophobic epithets "nancy" and "pansy", such in his expressions of contempt for what he called the "pansy Left", and "nancy poets", i.e. left-wing homosexual or bisexual writers and intellectuals such as Stephen Spender and W. H. Auden."
I think the right has distanced itself from the German Student Union of the 1930s...
Johnson's comments on Ukraine/Brexit are of course just another example of why he is unfit to be prime minister. At some point I hope a biographer will be able to explain the contradictions of a politician who on the one hand had the ability to connect with ordinary people and yet at the same time was prone to the most crass misjudgments.
The broader point is that it smacks of desperation. He fought the last on the platform of 'get Brexit done'. Is the campaign for the next election going to be 'got Brexit done?' Does he actually have anything else constructive to offer or will he just remind us that Starmer was a Remainer and can't be trusted not to take us back into the single market? There is still no answer to the Irish problem and as for all the 'freedoms' won by the Brexit vote, do we intend to do anything with them or not?
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
I have thought about this before. Once Scotland becomes independent, is there a way England and Wales can avoid using the word so we can move toward a concept of “the British Isles” and being “British” in the same sense one can be “Mediterranean”? Tricky for the Irish to work with though, I guess, because of history.
Scotland is not becoming independent.
However we will always be British ie the 3 nations of England, Scotland and Wales.
Even President Biden was talking about Great Britain and Ireland when he met the Irish PM on St Patrick's Day last week and their response to the Ukraine. Though technically he should have said Great Britain and NI or the UK and Ireland (or the Republic of Ireland) though we all know he is very much pro a united Ireland as per his Catholic Irish heritage even if he does not say so openly
Wales a nation: Henry VIII would be ever so angry to hear you say that.
Anyway, night all: sun over the yardarm so time to find the wine and olive pate stuff to put on toast.
Wales is part of the Kingdom of England (with its own Prince of Wales) and the Kingdom of Great Britain as part of England and along with Scotland and also the United Kingdom as part of England, along with Scotland and Northern Ireland
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
True, but Malky is true red white and blue. Probably hums GSTQ in his sleep.
you are a smartarse who knows little and pontificates on other people. So clever you don't even know where Ayrshire is and obviously have never read any of my posts. I hate the butcher's apron and arseholes like. you that worship it.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
True, but Malky is true red white and blue. Probably hums GSTQ in his sleep.
You've got his domicile mixed up - Larkhall isn't in Ayrshire, where he bides.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
May I just add that my daughter was sexually interfered with by our local GP, Dr Alan Tutin, when she was sixteen. It was a fairly minor case and I never heard anything about it until about seven years later when she was one of a number of women who voluntairly submitted evidence to the GMC in support of another local girl who had been much more seriously assaulted by him.
The GMC threw the case out, which surprised me because it implied that my daughter and numerous other impartial and well-educated young women were lying.
Many years later, in 2019, he was convicted at the Old Bailey in a high profile case at which my daughter again gave evidence.
He had of course been practicing in the interim. We can only guess at the number of victims he assaulted between the two hearings, but I think it is fair to say it was likely to have been a lot.
What lessons do we draw? In Tutin's case it is very simple. The GMC is a trade union, which defends its members regardless. Its responsibilities to the public are a secondary issue, if that.
I see no evidence that it has changed its ways as a result of my daughter's case, or any of those you mention. I do not see any reason to think it will change unless forced to do so. It has a deeply entrenched posiiton and there is little pressure on it to show the same concern for you and me as it does for its members.
Please note, you are incorrect to describe the GMC as a trade union. It is not. The GMC is a statutory regulator. The medical trades unions are the BMA, the HCSA and a number of more recent breakaway. They have no regulatory power.
The GMC does have medical representation, but these are appointed by the government rather than elected by Doctors, and are not in a majority because of Lay representation.
There is a lot wrong with the GMC, but it is certainly not protective of doctors, indeed one of the recent major criticisms is the large number of doctors who commit suicide when up before it's Kafka-esque procedures.
I am sorry to hear of your daughters experiences, but to depict the GMC as a trade union protective of doctors is Putinesque in its departure from truth.
Noted with thanks and I stand corrected, but the fact remains that the hearing she attended more than twenty years ago dismissed her evidence and also that of a number of other perfectly sensible and mature young women. Their evidence was not accepted. They preferred Dr Tutin's instead.
How does that happen?
The same way some court cases don't necessarily always go the right way. The hearings are heard and a judgement made on the evidence
If that had been the case, Hyufd, he would have been taken out of circulayion twenty years before he was.
Depends on the evidence, solicitors and barristers act in GMC hearings as much as they act in court cases. Maybe the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction before but was 20 years later
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Jesus
Do you seriously think that the "woman" in the nhs case was in any real sense trans?
Neither of your studies asked about assaults perpetrated *by* trans women, nor could expect to receive a useful answer if it did, but you cite them both as evidence of the assault/be assaulted imbalance. Why?
Why? Because the implication by some of you on here is that all trans people are nasty perverts and potential rapists, when in actual fact the vast majority are far more likely to be victims of assault and sexual assault, statistically far more so than women born in that gender. They are deserving of protection too. Protections they might not receive if they are forced into "male" spaces.
I made no specific comment on the NHS case.
you are very good at the cross and shouty thing, but you are making errors of logic and comprehension that would guarantee a fail in 11 plus.
do you think, or do you think that any one of "you on here" thinks, that the self dentifying women who rape women in hospitals and prisons are ever in fact trans women?
What I'm getting at is there is a certain kind of gender essentialist who will gladly point at outlying and rare cases of men pretending to be women in order to demonise transgender women, when in actual fact statistically transgender people are at an extremely elevated risk of becoming victims of assault or sexual assault themselves. That risk is greatly increased when they are exposed as transgender.
For example. Let's say there's a completely female-passing individual who has lived as a woman for eight years, been on hormone therapy for six, got breast implants four years ago, but has only recently gotten to the top of the NHS waiting list for vaginoplasty, which happens next month. Now, do we insist they use the male bathroom up until next month, when their penis gets removed, or do we apply some common sense, and say that such a person is far more likely to be the victim of an assault or sexual assault if they are forced into a "male" toilet or changing room?
As ever, it is the marginal cases that cause us difficulty. Sticking with the example above, do we allow them to use the women's toilet only when they look indistinguishable from a natural born woman? For some people that never happens, even when they've had their tallywhacker removed. So are they still a man? Or do we say it's only allowable on the onset of hormone treatment? Or after two years of hormone treatment?
What this means is that there is always going to be an element of gatekeeping. The trans rights advocates who argue anyone should be able to self-certify are, of course, wrong, because it allows dangerous men to take advantage of the system. However, the gender essentialists who argue, like Malc, that trans women are just "men who dress as women" are also wrong.
In a normal world we would apply a bit of common sense with a non-judgemental vetting process as part of the transition process that certifies trans women relatively early on in their transition, with marginal cases required to use gender neutral spaces until they've passed the vetting process.
Life is too short to read any of that, but try to get it into your head that being against people who pretend to be trans is a different thing from being against people who are actually trans. Different. Not the same. Not somewhere on the same spectrum, but really different. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be "anti trans" but if I were I'd be cheering the fakers on, because the people they are doing most damage too, other than their actual rape victims, are the genuinely trans.
Perhaps read my reply to you before commenting then? Or don't bother replying at all?
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
But it sounds mad to everyone else. Which isn't good for Keir "Sanity" Starmer. That's the point
And this?
"Yvette Cooper has become the second shadow cabinet minister in two days to decline to define what a woman is, describing the subject as a “rabbit hole”.
The shadow home secretary refused three times to spell out a definition"
You know, for somebody calling me "intellectually incurious" you show a stubborn determination to avoid grasping a pretty simple argument.
Or is it you do get it and all you're doing is celebrating the ignorance and confusion around this question because you deduce it damages Labour? Hmm. Yes, I think I have that as slight favourite. Bright guy like you.
Cooper? Understandable from her. She's worked out it's a lose/lose because of the tedious bad faith twisting of any response.
But again it's easy. A woman is an adult of the female gender, the vast majority being born that way.
What's your "Tory" definition of a woman? Is it different?
"A woman is an adult of the female gender, the vast majority being born that way."
That's convoluted, but it's not a bad answer to the question, in the circumstances
Why didn't Cooper use it? Because there are plenty of Wokier people in her party who find fault
If you find that 'convoluted' I'm surprised you get through much book-learning!
But c'mon, you dodged it. What's your Tory definition?
Don't give me a cheap joke like "a woman's a woman" - I'm interested.
What is a woman?
Ah, that is the very devil of a question
Woman is a mood. A glance. A lilt of a voice on a soft summer dusk, carrying over the waters. Woman is a dream, a dance, a little death in the night. Woman is night, she is day, she is loss and delay. Woman is want and need, she is appetite unrequited. Always, always
She is the lipstick on the espresso cup, the scent on a silken scarf, she is the faint trace fossil of a sigh, a sigh, a sigh of painful delight. Woman. Is Woman
And that is all we need to know, and that, my friend @kinabalu is all we can ever know
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Um, I know comparisons with Nazis are not usually a productive contribution to internet debates, but I do encourage you to investigate which books exactly were being burnt in the most famous Nazi book burning photographs.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
Probably a few treatises on habitual and relentless masturbation in there too. I feel your pain.
Nobody has said anything about the trans. The problem is fakers who are enabled by thick virtue signallers like you
If we are doing 20th century history, incidentally, can you guess which darling of the left this is?
X was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common. ...Daphne Patai said: "Of course he was homophobic. That has nothing to do with his relations with his homosexual friends. Certainly, he had a negative attitude and a certain kind of anxiety, a denigrating attitude towards homosexuality. That is definitely the case. I think his writing reflects that quite fully."
X used the homophobic epithets "nancy" and "pansy", such in his expressions of contempt for what he called the "pansy Left", and "nancy poets", i.e. left-wing homosexual or bisexual writers and intellectuals such as Stephen Spender and W. H. Auden."
I think the right has distanced itself from the German Student Union of the 1930s...
Is it Malcom?
lol
It's Orwell
I don't buy the "everyone was then" card btw. Posh right wing thicko, nearly Hitler's sis in law, Nancy Mitford has markedly sympathetic treatment of male gays, at the same time.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
Nope. Europe is a continent (big bit). The British Isles are islands (small, non continental bits). Your half-grasp of the theory of plate tectonics does not alter this.
Is Madagascar an African country? Is Sri Lanka an Asian country? Or Japan?
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
True, but Malky is true red white and blue. Probably hums GSTQ in his sleep.
you are a smartarse who knows little and pontificates on other people. So clever you don't even know where Ayrshire is and obviously have never read any of my posts. I hate the butcher's apron and arseholes like. you that worship it.
Ayrshire... is that the bit between the anus and the scrotum?
You would know given your head is obviously stuck up your own arse Fcukwit.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Um, I know comparisons with Nazis are not usually a productive contribution to internet debates, but I do encourage you to investigate which books exactly were being burnt in the most famous Nazi book burning photographs.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
Probably a few treatises on habitual and relentless masturbation in there too. I feel your pain.
Nobody has said anything about the trans. The problem is fakers who are enabled by thick virtue signallers like you
If we are doing 20th century history, incidentally, can you guess which darling of the left this is?
X was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common. ...Daphne Patai said: "Of course he was homophobic. That has nothing to do with his relations with his homosexual friends. Certainly, he had a negative attitude and a certain kind of anxiety, a denigrating attitude towards homosexuality. That is definitely the case. I think his writing reflects that quite fully."
X used the homophobic epithets "nancy" and "pansy", such in his expressions of contempt for what he called the "pansy Left", and "nancy poets", i.e. left-wing homosexual or bisexual writers and intellectuals such as Stephen Spender and W. H. Auden."
I think the right has distanced itself from the German Student Union of the 1930s...
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
You are what you are born , all the pretending and surgery in the world does not change that fact.
You were born British right?
Not a chance , Scottish. No such thing as British unless you apply it to the Isles.
Nah sorry, you are what you are born mate. Suck it up.
He dresses in a kilt and dyes his hair ginger, but we all know that no matter how many porridge breakfasts he eats, in his chest beats the heart of the truest BRIT you ever did meet.
They are not mutually exclusive. Scots are British. They will be no less British if Scotland leaves the political structure of the UK, just as we are still European even though we've left the EU. It is a geographical fact.
Nope. Europe is a continent (big bit). The British Isles are islands (small, non continental bits). Your half-grasp of the theory of plate tectonics does not alter this.
Is Madagascar an African country? Is Sri Lanka an Asian country? Or Japan?
I think booking Zhenya was quite a coup for the Scottish Tories.
Zhenya Jenny Dove @FitMouse I was invited to give a speech at @ScotTories conference, and got lucky to have a private meeting with @BorisJohnson , the person in charge of the decision-making in our country. I am humbled and touched. No political entity showed any interest in what I had to say until now ❤️🇺🇦 https://twitter.com/FitMouse/status/1505179840290377736
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
No, a woman who identifies as a man is a man with a cervix. Your question could get you cancelled out of a job in a UK university.
Legally, this /is/ the current UK position, for someone in possession of a GRC: A GRC document makes you a man (or woman) in the eyes of the law I believe. Anything that carries legal weight has to treat that person as the gender on their GRC.
It’s been this way ever since the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 - this is hardly new fangled legislation.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Not quite. A woman who has legally transitioned is treated ("treated" is the word used in the relevant legislation) as a male for most purposes (though note the exceptions in the Equality Act). But they remain of the female sex. Because sex cannot be changed and the relevant legislation does not purport to do so.
A GRC is fundamentally a legal fiction to allow people with gender dysphoria to live as if they were a different sex, to be treated as if they were of the opposite sex. But it does not and cannot change the scientific reality.
So it is only females who have a cervix.
The fact that sex cannot be changed is relevant to health. That is why it is important to keep a record of the birth sex because otherwise sex-related conditions cannot be properly treated eg cervical cancer or prostate cancer.
You may say that it is only the legal statements which matter. But that is to ignore material reality - which matters in relation to health, as I've said - and many other matters besides.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
We have a route whereby people can legally change their gender from the one they were born with. Therefore transgender is recognized here. As it is in most countries.
The debate is should that process be made quicker and easier. And what controls are needed to ensure fairness and safety for women - eg pro sports, prisons, refuges.
That's it. That's the essence of this. Unfortunately 90% of commentary on it goes over the hills and far away.
The vast majority of the argument here seems to be in reaction to examples where those in favour of an absolutist interpretation of what it means to be trans - that a transwoman is a woman, with no nuance or exception - comes face-to-face with reality, where a transwoman with a male body still presents a physical threat to women in a way that has a lot more in common with the threat posed by cis men, rather than that posed by cis women.
And, yes, that debate has little to do with the gender recognition act, but it's where the debate is at. The debate is not over the nuance of changes to the law.
Russia is often portrayed as the invincible military power. And yet, this reputation is based on two wars - Napoleonic and WWII. In both cases Russia won only thanks to the alliance allied with *the* leading economic powerhouse of that era🧵
I think booking Zhenya was quite a coup for the Scottish Tories.
Zhenya Jenny Dove @FitMouse I was invited to give a speech at @ScotTories conference, and got lucky to have a private meeting with @BorisJohnson , the person in charge of the decision-making in our country. I am humbled and touched. No political entity showed any interest in what I had to say until now ❤️🇺🇦 https://twitter.com/FitMouse/status/1505179840290377736
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
Jesus
Do you seriously think that the "woman" in the nhs case was in any real sense trans?
Neither of your studies asked about assaults perpetrated *by* trans women, nor could expect to receive a useful answer if it did, but you cite them both as evidence of the assault/be assaulted imbalance. Why?
Why? Because the implication by some of you on here is that all trans people are nasty perverts and potential rapists, when in actual fact the vast majority are far more likely to be victims of assault and sexual assault, statistically far more so than women born in that gender. They are deserving of protection too. Protections they might not receive if they are forced into "male" spaces.
I made no specific comment on the NHS case.
you are very good at the cross and shouty thing, but you are making errors of logic and comprehension that would guarantee a fail in 11 plus.
do you think, or do you think that any one of "you on here" thinks, that the self dentifying women who rape women in hospitals and prisons are ever in fact trans women?
What I'm getting at is there is a certain kind of gender essentialist who will gladly point at outlying and rare cases of men pretending to be women in order to demonise transgender women, when in actual fact statistically transgender people are at an extremely elevated risk of becoming victims of assault or sexual assault themselves. That risk is greatly increased when they are exposed as transgender.
For example. Let's say there's a completely female-passing individual who has lived as a woman for eight years, been on hormone therapy for six, got breast implants four years ago, but has only recently gotten to the top of the NHS waiting list for vaginoplasty, which happens next month. Now, do we insist they use the male bathroom up until next month, when their penis gets removed, or do we apply some common sense, and say that such a person is far more likely to be the victim of an assault or sexual assault if they are forced into a "male" toilet or changing room?
As ever, it is the marginal cases that cause us difficulty. Sticking with the example above, do we allow them to use the women's toilet only when they look indistinguishable from a natural born woman? For some people that never happens, even when they've had their tallywhacker removed. So are they still a man? Or do we say it's only allowable on the onset of hormone treatment? Or after two years of hormone treatment?
What this means is that there is always going to be an element of gatekeeping. The trans rights advocates who argue anyone should be able to self-certify are, of course, wrong, because it allows dangerous men to take advantage of the system. However, the gender essentialists who argue, like Malc, that trans women are just "men who dress as women" are also wrong.
In a normal world we would apply a bit of common sense with a non-judgemental vetting process as part of the transition process that certifies trans women relatively early on in their transition, with marginal cases required to use gender neutral spaces until they've passed the vetting process.
Life is too short to read any of that, but try to get it into your head that being against people who pretend to be trans is a different thing from being against people who are actually trans. Different. Not the same. Not somewhere on the same spectrum, but really different. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be "anti trans" but if I were I'd be cheering the fakers on, because the people they are doing most damage too, other than their actual rape victims, are the genuinely trans.
People talk about this as though it is only a question of picking on trans women, by seeking to exclude them from female-only spaces. But the point of female-only spaces is to exclude male bodies from those spaces, and so the trans people are not being picked out in that respect, just as men who aren't rapists aren't being victimised either.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
No, a woman who identifies as a man is a man with a cervix. Your question could get you cancelled out of a job in a UK university.
Legally, this /is/ the current UK position, for someone in possession of a GRC: A GRC document makes you a man (or woman) in the eyes of the law I believe. Anything that carries legal weight has to treat that person as the gender on their GRC.
It’s been this way ever since the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 - this is hardly new fangled legislation.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Not quite. A woman who has legally transitioned is treated ("treated" is the word used in the relevant legislation) as a male for most purposes (though note the exceptions in the Equality Act). But they remain of the female sex. Because sex cannot be changed and the relevant legislation does not purport to do so.
A GRC is fundamentally a legal fiction to allow people with gender dysphoria to live as if they were a different sex, to be treated as if they were of the opposite sex. But it does not and cannot change the scientific reality.
So it is only females who have a cervix.
The fact that sex cannot be changed is relevant to health. That is why it is important to keep a record of the birth sex because otherwise sex-related conditions cannot be properly treated eg cervical cancer or prostate cancer.
You may say that it is only the legal statements which matter. But that is to ignore material reality - which matters in relation to health, as I've said - and many other matters besides.
The only people that care whether or not I have a prostate should be my GP & any clinicians I end up being referred to on that topic.
I don’t think they’re going to be confused about what gender I identify as when they’re sticking their fingers up my fundament...
(IOW, this is an irrelevant objection: obviously healthcare professionals with a direct relationship with a trans person will need to know their biological reality, whatever it happens to be. That’s a discussion that they should have in private, between each other. Just as my conversations with my GP & other health care professionals are made in private, because it’s no one else’s business.)
May I just add that my daughter was sexually interfered with by our local GP, Dr Alan Tutin, when she was sixteen. It was a fairly minor case and I never heard anything about it until about seven years later when she was one of a number of women who voluntairly submitted evidence to the GMC in support of another local girl who had been much more seriously assaulted by him.
The GMC threw the case out, which surprised me because it implied that my daughter and numerous other impartial and well-educated young women were lying.
Many years later, in 2019, he was convicted at the Old Bailey in a high profile case at which my daughter again gave evidence.
He had of course been practicing in the interim. We can only guess at the number of victims he assaulted between the two hearings, but I think it is fair to say it was likely to have been a lot.
What lessons do we draw? In Tutin's case it is very simple. The GMC is a trade union, which defends its members regardless. Its responsibilities to the public are a secondary issue, if that.
I see no evidence that it has changed its ways as a result of my daughter's case, or any of those you mention. I do not see any reason to think it will change unless forced to do so. It has a deeply entrenched posiiton and there is little pressure on it to show the same concern for you and me as it does for its members.
Please note, you are incorrect to describe the GMC as a trade union. It is not. The GMC is a statutory regulator. The medical trades unions are the BMA, the HCSA and a number of more recent breakaway. They have no regulatory power.
The GMC does have medical representation, but these are appointed by the government rather than elected by Doctors, and are not in a majority because of Lay representation.
There is a lot wrong with the GMC, but it is certainly not protective of doctors, indeed one of the recent major criticisms is the large number of doctors who commit suicide when up before it's Kafka-esque procedures.
I am sorry to hear of your daughters experiences, but to depict the GMC as a trade union protective of doctors is Putinesque in its departure from truth.
Noted with thanks and I stand corrected, but the fact remains that the hearing she attended more than twenty years ago dismissed her evidence and also that of a number of other perfectly sensible and mature young women. Their evidence was not accepted. They preferred Dr Tutin's instead.
How does that happen?
The same way some court cases don't necessarily always go the right way. The hearings are heard and a judgement made on the evidence
If that had been the case, Hyufd, he would have been taken out of circulayion twenty years before he was.
Depends on the evidence, solicitors and barristers act in GMC hearings as much as they act in court cases. Maybe the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction before but was 20 years later
You may think that but I was there and can tell you that the main difference was twelve good men and true versus an in-house inquiry.
There was also I think a bit of a sea-change in public attitudes. At the trial, there was much less inclination to believe a 'hard-working doctor' in preference to a bunch of young women.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
I'm smart enough not to say this in my professional life but I (like most people) know perfectly well what a woman is.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
Exactly. Why this (incessant) debate is top of the list in the West is baffling and can only be explained by Wokery.
The very thing you were berated for pointing out earlier today.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
I don't think this complex.
Some people have gender reassignment surgery, and go through horrendous hormone treatments, and no particular threat to people of their new sex. These people get to take on their new sex, and if you wish to call them transgender you can.
If you have not gone through this process (but are on the path), then you get to call yourself 'transitioning'. They do not get access to safe spaces for their non-birth gender - such as prisons, bathrooms, changing rooms, or the like.
I would suggest that we encourage a small number of bathrooms, etc., as private spaces where those who have modesty issues or are transitioning and feel uncomfortable can use.
Problem solved.
I don't think that's unreasonable - although it's worth pointing out that even sophisticated gender reassignment surgery won't make someone who was born a man the same as one born a female, and vice-versa.
But, nuance is not allowed in this debate and that, fundamentally, is what people mean when they use Woke as a pejorative.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
It's a bit weird being so obsessed with who has a cervix and who doesn't, to be honest.
But the obsession started on the Woke left and remains most fervent over there, where the lunatics are. See the Trans-Terf wars, see the online abuse of lefty J K Rowling. It's red on red internecine lefty weirdness.
It's just that other people have noticed, and it is now starting to affect ordinary, non-political people
Which is obviously the case or it wouldn't be the case that so many people engage with the debate or are savvy enough to work out what you can or can't say about it.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
The advantage is you keep your job and your livelihood.
Right now, that's where the Zeitgeist is at. I'm very confident that future generations will look back at us in the 2020s as being utterly mad.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
But it sounds mad to everyone else. Which isn't good for Keir "Sanity" Starmer. That's the point
And this?
"Yvette Cooper has become the second shadow cabinet minister in two days to decline to define what a woman is, describing the subject as a “rabbit hole”.
The shadow home secretary refused three times to spell out a definition"
Yes, because the people asking the question are being disengenuous - they don’t care about the actual answer, they’re just setting a trap & intend to close it upon the answerer.
& the reality is that it’s impossible to give an answer that isn’t exlusionary, because nouns are never precisely defined objects. Think of something “simple” like, say, “chair”. Can you define what a chair is in a way that includes all the things that people refer to as chairs, but is not so completely fuzzy as to be useless? How about “sandwich” ? (cue the: is a hotdog a sandwich war...) You may claim, ah ha! but for people we can resort to genetics: Manliness is in the genes! Except not - there are people with XY genes out there who have had multiple children. Are they men now? What about intersex people ? And so on.
Trying to nail down what defines a “women” or a “man” is a quasi-fascistic act. It excludes more than it includes - we’re already seeing “manly”-appearing women being challenged in female toilets because for some people they’re crossing some arbitrary line about how feminine you have to be there, something that they report experiencing only in the last few years as anti-trans rhetoric has ramped up in this country.
This is a path that can only get worse from here & I don’t think it’s one we ought to be taking
I agree but I think there will be a backlash against it.
It's more the fact I might be judged by future generations as an idiot that went along with the nonsense that bothers me.
Johnson's comments on Ukraine/Brexit are of course just another example of why he is unfit to be prime minister. At some point I hope a biographer will be able to explain the contradictions of a politician who on the one hand had the ability to connect with ordinary people and yet at the same time was prone to the most crass misjudgments.
The broader point is that it smacks of desperation. He fought the last on the platform of 'get Brexit done'. Is the campaign for the next election going to be 'got Brexit done?' Does he actually have anything else constructive to offer or will he just remind us that Starmer was a Remainer and can't be trusted not to take us back into the single market? There is still no answer to the Irish problem and as for all the 'freedoms' won by the Brexit vote, do we intend to do anything with them or not?
It's Spring Conference, the party talking to itself. There's been all sorts of self-indulgent wibble form various mouths.
And Johnson's superpower has always been to divine what his audience wants to hear and say it to them.
If the audience is the subsection of Conservative membership who are so keen that they will spend a March weekend in Blackpool, of course he will tell them that their great Brexit achievement is in the historical list of liberations. That's what they want to hear.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
No, a woman who identifies as a man is a man with a cervix. Your question could get you cancelled out of a job in a UK university.
Legally, this /is/ the current UK position, for someone in possession of a GRC: A GRC document makes you a man (or woman) in the eyes of the law I believe. Anything that carries legal weight has to treat that person as the gender on their GRC.
It’s been this way ever since the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 - this is hardly new fangled legislation.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Not quite. A woman who has legally transitioned is treated ("treated" is the word used in the relevant legislation) as a male for most purposes (though note the exceptions in the Equality Act). But they remain of the female sex. Because sex cannot be changed and the relevant legislation does not purport to do so.
A GRC is fundamentally a legal fiction to allow people with gender dysphoria to live as if they were a different sex, to be treated as if they were of the opposite sex. But it does not and cannot change the scientific reality.
So it is only females who have a cervix.
The fact that sex cannot be changed is relevant to health. That is why it is important to keep a record of the birth sex because otherwise sex-related conditions cannot be properly treated eg cervical cancer or prostate cancer.
You may say that it is only the legal statements which matter. But that is to ignore material reality - which matters in relation to health, as I've said - and many other matters besides.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Yes
To me, and I reckon most people, a person still in possession of a cervix is a biological woman, just as a person still in possession of a penis is a biological man. If they change gender then they change GENDER, not their biological sex (unless and until they have reassignment surgery)
Only biological women have cervixes (apart from some fantastically rare freak cases); Keir "sanity" Starmer is insane
Exactly. Why this (incessant) debate is top of the list in the West is baffling and can only be explained by Wokery.
The very thing you were berated for pointing out earlier today.
We keep talking about it because he keeps bringing it up.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
The law is an invented thing. We can change it at will. But the existence of two sexes as the basis of sexual reproduction in mammals - that isn't something we can simply redefine out of existence by force of will. And for humans the essence of the sexual dimorphism is that women have cervixes and men do not.
Now sure, there are plenty of edge cases where it is a lot more complicated than that, and it turns out that sex hormones are at least as important as genetics, but, whatever. That is the essential physical reality for most people.
Most of the time it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman, then it equally doesn't matter whether someone who is biologically female call themselves male. What difference does it make?
But, for the very small number of circumstances where it does matter I don't understand why we would use a human-created legal fiction as our determinant, rather than the more consequential biological reality.
Why would we do that? What is the advantage?
We have a route whereby people can legally change their gender from the one they were born with. Therefore transgender is recognized here. As it is in most countries.
The debate is should that process be made quicker and easier. And what controls are needed to ensure fairness and safety for women - eg pro sports, prisons, refuges.
That's it. That's the essence of this. Unfortunately 90% of commentary on it goes over the hills and far away.
The vast majority of the argument here seems to be in reaction to examples where those in favour of an absolutist interpretation of what it means to be trans - that a transwoman is a woman, with no nuance or exception - comes face-to-face with reality, where a transwoman with a male body still presents a physical threat to women in a way that has a lot more in common with the threat posed by cis men, rather than that posed by cis women.
And, yes, that debate has little to do with the gender recognition act, but it's where the debate is at. The debate is not over the nuance of changes to the law.
There's hardly anybody on here with the dogmatic "trans women are women" position.
There are, however, tons with the opposite dogmatic "trans women are men" position.
Russia is often portrayed as the invincible military power. And yet, this reputation is based on two wars - Napoleonic and WWII. In both cases Russia won only thanks to the alliance allied with *the* leading economic powerhouse of that era🧵
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
No, not simply incorrect. The law cannot modify either reality, or the English language. If you like we can invent new categories - lwomen and lmen vs bwomen and bmen, where l is legal and b is birth or biological. a lman is just a bwoman with a piece of paper. Which is fine: for almost all purposes we can treat lwoman as = woman, but not where you start confusing the categories and insisting that lwomen do not have penises and are therefore incapable of rape. you would think that stipulation would be too obvious to need making, but we have just seen that it does.
Sure, it all depends on how you're using the term "woman". But what I'm mainly trying to explain is why Starmer's statement is nothing to fire up the outrage bus about.
Russia is often portrayed as the invincible military power. And yet, this reputation is based on two wars - Napoleonic and WWII. In both cases Russia won only thanks to the alliance allied with *the* leading economic powerhouse of that era🧵
May I just add that my daughter was sexually interfered with by our local GP, Dr Alan Tutin, when she was sixteen. It was a fairly minor case and I never heard anything about it until about seven years later when she was one of a number of women who voluntairly submitted evidence to the GMC in support of another local girl who had been much more seriously assaulted by him.
The GMC threw the case out, which surprised me because it implied that my daughter and numerous other impartial and well-educated young women were lying.
Many years later, in 2019, he was convicted at the Old Bailey in a high profile case at which my daughter again gave evidence.
He had of course been practicing in the interim. We can only guess at the number of victims he assaulted between the two hearings, but I think it is fair to say it was likely to have been a lot.
What lessons do we draw? In Tutin's case it is very simple. The GMC is a trade union, which defends its members regardless. Its responsibilities to the public are a secondary issue, if that.
I see no evidence that it has changed its ways as a result of my daughter's case, or any of those you mention. I do not see any reason to think it will change unless forced to do so. It has a deeply entrenched posiiton and there is little pressure on it to show the same concern for you and me as it does for its members.
Please note, you are incorrect to describe the GMC as a trade union. It is not. The GMC is a statutory regulator. The medical trades unions are the BMA, the HCSA and a number of more recent breakaway. They have no regulatory power.
The GMC does have medical representation, but these are appointed by the government rather than elected by Doctors, and are not in a majority because of Lay representation.
There is a lot wrong with the GMC, but it is certainly not protective of doctors, indeed one of the recent major criticisms is the large number of doctors who commit suicide when up before it's Kafka-esque procedures.
I am sorry to hear of your daughters experiences, but to depict the GMC as a trade union protective of doctors is Putinesque in its departure from truth.
Noted with thanks and I stand corrected, but the fact remains that the hearing she attended more than twenty years ago dismissed her evidence and also that of a number of other perfectly sensible and mature young women. Their evidence was not accepted. They preferred Dr Tutin's instead.
How does that happen?
The same way some court cases don't necessarily always go the right way. The hearings are heard and a judgement made on the evidence
If that had been the case, Hyufd, he would have been taken out of circulayion twenty years before he was.
Depends on the evidence, solicitors and barristers act in GMC hearings as much as they act in court cases. Maybe the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction before but was 20 years later
You may think that but I was there and can tell you that the main difference was twelve good men and true versus an in-house inquiry.
There was also I think a bit of a sea-change in public attitudes. At the trial, there was much less inclination to believe a 'hard-working doctor' in preference to a bunch of young women.
Pre 2002 the GMC did have a different structure, and was in large part elected by Doctors, so things were rather different then.
Allegations of sexual misbehavior have always been a fairly significant part of misconduct panels though, and far from all going the way of the doctor.
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
Yes, that's the way to do it. Along with highlighting the crazier and nastier examples of actual Wokeness "gone wrong"
And the Tories need to hammer this. Raise awareness
Didn’t single sex wards used to be a Labour campaigning point, or was that the tories?
How are single sex wards a help when all you need to do to get on one is say "I identify as a woman" and don't claim it won't happen as it already does for single sex prisons
The Equality Act specifically allows transgender people to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex in certain circumstances if it is a proportionate measure necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Briefly, you can do so in order to have single sex wards, loos etc. The hospital was not obliged to allow a man claiming to be a woman onto a woman's ward. In doing so it breached its duty of care to the woman and compounded that initial error by then being less than honest when a crime occurred.
There is a conflict between good safeguarding practice and accepting people at their own estimation. The latter is a breach of good safeguarding practice. It would be good if this could be understood so that practical solutions could be found, rather than pretending that there are no issues.
It is not a breach of any duty of care to put a transgender woman on a woman's ward and the fact that you proceed from that assumption, not from any suggestion that the duty of care was to properly investigate a serious sexual assault, is in support of your own agenda.
Comments
There's nothing stopping a man identifying as a man marching into a women's ward/bathroom/etc and attacking people, other than a legal fiction.
The usual comment is, yes, but that's not the real world. Well, it can be. And we know what happens when you don't try.
I always read your editorials on PB avidly, but your present one fascinated me because much of this appeared in my book LIFELINE which was published last April. It's great to have someone of your eminence signing from the same hymn book.
My book also draws the contrast with other large industries (aviation, railways, nuclear) where we used to have a quite appalling safety record, but in each case there was a moment of revelation like St Paul on the road to Damascus. Yet in health we blunder on. All of us know that when, in the NHS, one hears a manager or politician say 'lessons have been learned' that in fact the problem has been swept under the carpet. Doctors and nurses have been marginalised.
If anyone wants to talk to me about the subject or ask me to give a talk anywhere (within reason) or write an article on this, please feel free to email me, barrymonk@doctors.org.uk
Quoting Wikipedia: “The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the Institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
Hatred of trans people is a fixture on the right I’m afraid & predates the idea of “wokeness” by decades.
But it absolutely is not accepted by a large minority of vocal people, and, for want of a better word, they are The Woke. The mad Woke left, and they tend to be the people most obsessed with this, making careers out of it, so they become diversity officers and they write gender rules (for the NHS?) and they run charities like Stonewall and that way they steer the whole of society towards a place most of us find deeply uncomfortable, if not insane, where a woman who was raped is told she was not raped: because, trans
do you think, or do you think that any one of "you on here" thinks, that the self dentifying women who rape women in hospitals and prisons are ever in fact trans women?
The logic of your argument is not to bother having separate male/female bathrooms at all, which, weirdly, is not what happens.
- Steve Buscemi in "Con Air" (1997).
But I also care deeply about this topic. I despise the Woke Left (as you might have noticed) and anything that exposes the madness of Wokeness and halts its poisonous advance into our discourse is to be welcomed. That is the far more important battle
Labour getting humiliated and beaten again would be a happy by product
Iyanuoluwa is among a growing number of refugees who claim the British government is ignoring black people who fled Ukraine.
Their experiences have again raised the issue of race and the UK’s welcome to refugees, prompting claims that ministers would never have unveiled last week’s humanitarian sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians had it not been aimed at white Europeans.
This is from the Guardian today. They are back on form. A Nigerian living in Kiev is in France, a safe country. Nigeria is a safe country to which she has a right to return. From the Guardian's point of view the UK is to blame, because she has family members in London.
Top performance from the Guardian. Maybe there are other facts that change things but on the details given this is not very impressive
The prime minister gave a short speech at the event in central London as it became clear the Russian invasion was imminent, allegedly telling guests he had to leave early to deal with the crisis.
The event began on February 23 at about 8pm and was held at Spencer House, a Grade I listed building a mile from Downing Street.
It took place despite days of repeated warnings — including from Johnson personally — that the invasion appeared imminent, and only hours before Volodymyr Zelensky delivered an address in a last-ditch attempt to avert the war.
His plea was ignored and at 5am the next day Russian troops began their three-pronged offensive.
A few hours earlier, in London, Johnson was the star attraction at a dinner attended by about 75 people. They included dozens of wealthy party donors and a number of ministers, among them Michael Gove, the levelling-up secretary, and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary.
Other ministers were invited but did not attend, making excuses or citing diary commitments.
According to insiders, high-profile donors seen at the event included Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a former Russian deputy finance minister.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-was-at-tory-fundraiser-with-russian-donor-on-night-of-invasion-zwmg2snjr
All refugees set to have a Ukrainian-style welcome
Members of the public will be asked to offer their homes to refugees from other countries including Afghanistan under plans being considered by ministers after the “overwhelming” response to the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
More than 150,000 people have offered to take in a Ukrainian refugee since the government launched the scheme on Monday.
Government insiders said they expected this to outstrip the number of Ukrainians who want to come to the UK but do not want to waste the offers.
Ministers want to use the scheme to try to resettle other refugees, which could include thousands of Afghans still living in hotels seven months after they were evacuated from Kabul after Britain’s withdrawal. A minister said: “We’re considering it.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/736d8c80-a6f5-11ec-a03b-e2dc3fd8780f?shareToken=09a9a6a945158d6f4b9dcaf31073171f
Nobody has said anything about the trans. The problem is fakers who are enabled by thick virtue signallers like you
If we are doing 20th century history, incidentally, can you guess which darling of the left this is?
X was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common. ...Daphne Patai said: "Of course he was homophobic. That has nothing to do with his relations with his homosexual friends. Certainly, he had a negative attitude and a certain kind of anxiety, a denigrating attitude towards homosexuality. That is definitely the case. I think his writing reflects that quite fully."
X used the homophobic epithets "nancy" and "pansy", such in his expressions of contempt for what he called the "pansy Left", and "nancy poets", i.e. left-wing homosexual or bisexual writers and intellectuals such as Stephen Spender and W. H. Auden."
I think the right has distanced itself from the German Student Union of the 1930s...
Interesting that HMG is confirming what I predicted last night. We won't even get 150,000 Ukrainian refugees. I'd be surprised if we get 100,000. They don't want to come all this way, from their homes in Ukraine, and there is no big Ukrainians diaspora here to make them feel more welcome
I read your book and enjoyed it thoroughly. You put a sensible and well-balanced view.
Neither you nor I are anti-NHS. We are a long way from it. Yet as you indicate convincingly there has been an obstinate refusal to accept the kind of safety procedures which are routine in other high risk occupations and industries.
That is the nub of the issue, one which the medical profession itself seems reluctant to address.
He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.
The broader point is that it smacks of desperation. He fought the last on the platform of 'get Brexit done'. Is the campaign for the next election going to be 'got Brexit done?' Does he actually have anything else constructive to offer or will he just remind us that Starmer was a Remainer and can't be trusted not to take us back into the single market? There is still no answer to the Irish problem and as for all the 'freedoms' won by the Brexit vote, do we intend to do anything with them or not?
The debate is should that process be made quicker and easier. And what controls are needed to ensure fairness and safety for women - eg pro sports, prisons, refuges.
That's it. That's the essence of this. Unfortunately 90% of commentary on it goes over the hills and far away.
For example. Let's say there's a completely female-passing individual who has lived as a woman for eight years, been on hormone therapy for six, got breast implants four years ago, but has only recently gotten to the top of the NHS waiting list for vaginoplasty, which happens next month. Now, do we insist they use the male bathroom up until next month, when their penis gets removed, or do we apply some common sense, and say that such a person is far more likely to be the victim of an assault or sexual assault if they are forced into a "male" toilet or changing room?
As ever, it is the marginal cases that cause us difficulty. Sticking with the example above, do we allow them to use the women's toilet only when they look indistinguishable from a natural born woman? For some people that never happens, even when they've had their tallywhacker removed. So are they still a man? Or do we say it's only allowable on the onset of hormone treatment? Or after two years of hormone treatment?
What this means is that there is always going to be an element of gatekeeping. The trans rights advocates who argue anyone should be able to self-certify are, of course, wrong, because it allows dangerous men to take advantage of the system. However, the gender essentialists who argue, like Malc, that trans women are just "men who dress as women" are also wrong.
In a normal world we would apply a bit of common sense with a non-judgemental vetting process as part of the transition process that certifies trans women relatively early on in their transition, with marginal cases required to use gender neutral spaces until they've passed the vetting process.
However we will always be British ie the 3 nations of England, Scotland and Wales.
Even President Biden was talking about Great Britain and Ireland when he met the Irish PM on St Patrick's Day last week and their response to the Ukraine. Though technically he should have said Great Britain and NI or the UK and Ireland (or the Republic of Ireland) though we all know he is very much pro a united Ireland as per his Catholic Irish heritage even if he does not say so openly
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Barry-Monk/s?rh=n:266239,p_27:Barry+Monk
I strongly recommend it to those interested in the subject. I even bought it, and am not in the least inclined to ask Frankyn for my money back!
Anyway, night all: sun over the yardarm so time to find the wine and olive pate stuff to put on toast.
A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.
But c'mon, you dodged it. What's your Tory definition?
Don't give me a cheap joke like "a woman's a woman" - I'm interested.
It's Orwell
Ah, that is the very devil of a question
Woman is a mood. A glance. A lilt of a voice on a soft summer dusk, carrying over the waters. Woman is a dream, a dance, a little death in the night. Woman is night, she is day, she is loss and delay. Woman is want and need, she is appetite unrequited. Always, always
She is the lipstick on the espresso cup, the scent on a silken scarf, she is the faint trace fossil of a sigh, a sigh, a sigh of painful delight. Woman. Is Woman
And that is all we need to know, and that, my friend @kinabalu is all we can ever know
Zhenya Jenny Dove
@FitMouse
I was invited to give a speech at
@ScotTories
conference, and got lucky to have a private meeting with
@BorisJohnson
, the person in charge of the decision-making in our country.
I am humbled and touched.
No political entity showed any interest in what I had to say until now ❤️🇺🇦
https://twitter.com/FitMouse/status/1505179840290377736
A GRC is fundamentally a legal fiction to allow people with gender dysphoria to live as if they were a different sex, to be treated as if they were of the opposite sex. But it does not and cannot change the scientific reality.
So it is only females who have a cervix.
The fact that sex cannot be changed is relevant to health. That is why it is important to keep a record of the birth sex because otherwise sex-related conditions cannot be properly treated eg cervical cancer or prostate cancer.
You may say that it is only the legal statements which matter. But that is to ignore material reality - which matters in relation to health, as I've said - and many other matters besides.
And, yes, that debate has little to do with the gender recognition act, but it's where the debate is at. The debate is not over the nuance of changes to the law.
identified as an ex-thread
Why Russia can't win against the West
Russia is often portrayed as the invincible military power. And yet, this reputation is based on two wars - Napoleonic and WWII. In both cases Russia won only thanks to the alliance allied with *the* leading economic powerhouse of that era🧵
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1505247886908424195
I don’t think they’re going to be confused about what gender I identify as when they’re sticking their fingers up my fundament...
(IOW, this is an irrelevant objection: obviously healthcare professionals with a direct relationship with a trans person will need to know their biological reality, whatever it happens to be. That’s a discussion that they should have in private, between each other. Just as my conversations with my GP & other health care professionals are made in private, because it’s no one else’s business.)
There was also I think a bit of a sea-change in public attitudes. At the trial, there was much less inclination to believe a 'hard-working doctor' in preference to a bunch of young women.
The very thing you were berated for pointing out earlier today.
But, nuance is not allowed in this debate and that, fundamentally, is what people mean when they use Woke as a pejorative.
Right now, that's where the Zeitgeist is at. I'm very confident that future generations will look back at us in the 2020s as being utterly mad.
It's more the fact I might be judged by future generations as an idiot that went along with the nonsense that bothers me.
And Johnson's superpower has always been to divine what his audience wants to hear and say it to them.
If the audience is the subsection of Conservative membership who are so keen that they will spend a March weekend in Blackpool, of course he will tell them that their great Brexit achievement is in the historical list of liberations. That's what they want to hear.
Only women have a cervix - Incorrect.
There are, however, tons with the opposite dogmatic "trans women are men" position.
Allegations of sexual misbehavior have always been a fairly significant part of misconduct panels though, and far from all going the way of the doctor.