FPT @StillWaters re people not reading past the headlines. Yes I agree, but they still become very aware once they realise there is an effective tax rate of 100% or more and a lot of Americans own shares or run businesses.
As neither of us have read the details I am wondering if it is rather more nuanced than this and is actually simply a tax avoidance measure aimed at the well off. Eg like when we got rid of B&B.
Something @HYUFD said late last night when I challenged the fact that he was getting capital and income mixed up. He referred to short term capital gains being taxed as income. That immediately rang alarm bells re the understanding of the measure. Firstly by definition you can't have an unrealised short term capital gain. If it is unrealised you don't know if it's short term or not yet, so what does that mean. However it is perfectly reasonable to treat short term realized capital gains as income. That would be normal practice here for instance if done on a very regular basis.
Not sure I can be bothered to read the details, but sounds like measures to stop avoidance to me.
I cannot believe 12 hours after posting this you are still going on about it.
Yes of course it is a tax rise aimed at the well off as that is what Democrats do as I originally said over 12 hours ago!
Why not. It is interesting. I'm happy to discuss with @StillWaters who makes sensible post. Feel free to ignore. And it is a bit kettle and pot to complain about going on about it.
You have also completely misread my latest post. I don't know where you got your last post last night from but it was interesting because it raised the issue of it not being a tax rise but closing down tax avoidance.
REAKING: According to the @ENTSOG European natural gas transparency data, no more Russian gas is coming through Ukraine since two hours. This represents over 25% of all Russian gas sales to Europe. Hourly updates on: https://berthub.eu/gazmon/ /cc
Interesting move for the negotiations going on in Turkey.....
Highlights a problem for next October - how will the Ukraine keep warm without gas...
Today. The Peace Talks. Zelenskyy has offered neutrality. Correct me where I’m wrong, What he means by this, Ukraine won’t bear arms, but it’s security will be underwritten by “guarantors” UK, US and Turkey.
Question. If the end to the war hinged on that, and they looked to us to sign as guarantor to initiate the peace, with Russia out, right back to how they were out at start of February, as UK PM would you sign to be guarantor?
I’ve had a think on this question, and my answer would be no.
I understand the position of Ukraine is armed neutrality.
I'm not sure what security guarantees we can offer that will be more convincing than the ones offered in 1994, that don't involve a permanent British military base in Ukraine - which presumably wouldn't be seen as very neutral.
Put a military base in Poland, close to the Ukranian border, and invite the Ukranians to train there while arming them to the teeth in Ukraine.
A massive anti-aircraft shield over Ukraine is a bare minimum. The best, the longest range possible. We should start building it now, 20 feet inside Ukraine, then work eastwards to Lviv and Kyiv. Then further out still. The best there is, the longest range there is. But to be used only for Russian incursions into Ukraine.
It would as a system still be at risk from hypersonic missiles launched from within Russia. But other sanctions will have to be used to deal with that.
Isn't there an effective no-fly zone anyway?
According the the Telegraph podcast from a few days ago the Russians are hardly flying at all and most of the damage is being caused by artillery launched from the ground or from planes in Russian/Belarusian airspace.
At the moment after the boundary changes the Conservatives and Labour would be neck and neck on seats on current polls but with the Conservatives almost certainly having won most seats in England alone.
However Starmer would still likely become PM in a hung parliament if he can get SNP and LD support
There are a lot of seats where the Tories will have a first time incumbency bonus.
“The debate over that slap and the joke and the apology is gonna consume the next three weeks of discourse” tweeted the Rolling Stone writer Brian Hiatt. “You’re gonna hear takes you can’t even imagine yet.”
Hiatt is right, with the exception of one detail: it won’t be three weeks, it will be more like three days. The ADHD news cycle could barely manage three weeks of sustained attention in response to the greatest security crisis in Europe since the Second World War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine began just four and a half weeks ago, and already is beginning to slip down the ‘top stories’ and ‘trending’ lists generated by news and social media platforms. This morning, 80% of the stories recommended to me by Twitter related to the Will Smith slap while news of ongoing Russian and Ukrainian negotiations barely feature.
Today. The Peace Talks. Zelenskyy has offered neutrality. Correct me where I’m wrong, What he means by this, Ukraine won’t bear arms, but it’s security will be underwritten by “guarantors” UK, US and Turkey.
Question. If the end to the war hinged on that, and they looked to us to sign as guarantor to initiate the peace, with Russia out, right back to how they were out at start of February, as UK PM would you sign to be guarantor?
I’ve had a think on this question, and my answer would be no.
I understand the position of Ukraine is armed neutrality.
I'm not sure what security guarantees we can offer that will be more convincing than the ones offered in 1994, that don't involve a permanent British military base in Ukraine - which presumably wouldn't be seen as very neutral.
Put a military base in Poland, close to the Ukranian border, and invite the Ukranians to train there while arming them to the teeth in Ukraine.
A massive anti-aircraft shield over Ukraine is a bare minimum. The best, the longest range possible. We should start building it now, 20 feet inside Ukraine, then work eastwards to Lviv and Kyiv. Then further out still. The best there is, the longest range there is. But to be used only for Russian incursions into Ukraine.
It would as a system still be at risk from hypersonic missiles launched from within Russia. But other sanctions will have to be used to deal with that.
Isn't there an effective no-fly zone anyway?
According the the Telegraph podcast from a few days ago the Russians are hardly flying at all and most of the damage is being caused by artillery launched from the ground or from planes in Russian/Belarusian airspace.
While the Russian Armed Forces re-prioritise, yes. But any coming assault on the JFO will likely involve CAS.
Sterling work from Ballot Box Scotland as usual on Glasgow locals, and tasty stuff for electoral nerds everywhere. Short summary, SNP probably safe as largest party, SLab have hopes of increase possibly at expense of SCons, SCons shaky, Greens have high hopes possibly of seats in double figures, SLDs stuffed again.
Today. The Peace Talks. Zelenskyy has offered neutrality. Correct me where I’m wrong, What he means by this, Ukraine won’t bear arms, but it’s security will be underwritten by “guarantors” UK, US and Turkey.
Question. If the end to the war hinged on that, and they looked to us to sign as guarantor to initiate the peace, with Russia out, right back to how they were out at start of February, as UK PM would you sign to be guarantor?
I’ve had a think on this question, and my answer would be no.
But think of the short-term publicity. Global Britain and all that!
Johnson won't be able to get the pen onto the paper fast enough.
And don't even think about letting Truss, as Foreign Sec do it.
Labour's @AngelaRayner: "The culture is set from the very top. The buck stops with the Prime Minister, who spent months lying to the British public, which is why he’s got to go."
Anyway, from the previous thread. Regarding Covid we don't need to reinstate restrictions but we do need to ask people to think. Covid is everywhere again and even if it isn't a threat to long-term health or our lives for most of us, it's bloody inconvenient.
I'm on the train into that London from Gatwick and am one of very few in a mask. I'm not going to wear one all day - it'll be off on the communal office. But where it's no imposition and it reduces to very low my chance of catching it now why not wear a mask?
I'm way too busy to get Covid. So I wear a mask and think what I am doing. Others could do the same and we wouldn't have the quiet epidemic we are currently suffering.
The evidence that any of the surviving measures reduce the risk of getting Covid is, at best, mixed. Anecdotally, the current wave is catching those who haven't had it yet and even some who have. As the former includes both my wife and myself this is not great news. And I really don't think the virus cares how busy I am right now.
A lot of people I know through extended family, mates, friends of friends, old work colleagues etc are coming down with this sub-variant. I've lost track of how times I have been told 'oh, by the way, so and so, has covid' in last three or four weeks.
Anecdotally, as far as I can see it is a massive wave at moment.
Yes, 1 in 13, supposedly. Reporting is likely to become a problem, since we all know so many who've got it that it seems almost intrusive to mention it instead of quietly self-isolating for 10 days as instructed.
My office returns to part-time (2 days/week) in-office work this week, though I have colleagues who feel that will ismply lead to more and more people being off work altogether.
Today. The Peace Talks. Zelenskyy has offered neutrality. Correct me where I’m wrong, What he means by this, Ukraine won’t bear arms, but it’s security will be underwritten by “guarantors” UK, US and Turkey.
Question. If the end to the war hinged on that, and they looked to us to sign as guarantor to initiate the peace, with Russia out, right back to how they were out at start of February, as UK PM would you sign to be guarantor?
I’ve had a think on this question, and my answer would be no.
I understand the position of Ukraine is armed neutrality.
I'm not sure what security guarantees we can offer that will be more convincing than the ones offered in 1994, that don't involve a permanent British military base in Ukraine - which presumably wouldn't be seen as very neutral.
Put a military base in Poland, close to the Ukranian border, and invite the Ukranians to train there while arming them to the teeth in Ukraine.
A massive anti-aircraft shield over Ukraine is a bare minimum. The best, the longest range possible. We should start building it now, 20 feet inside Ukraine, then work eastwards to Lviv and Kyiv. Then further out still. The best there is, the longest range there is. But to be used only for Russian incursions into Ukraine.
It would as a system still be at risk from hypersonic missiles launched from within Russia. But other sanctions will have to be used to deal with that.
Isn't there an effective no-fly zone anyway?
According the the Telegraph podcast from a few days ago the Russians are hardly flying at all and most of the damage is being caused by artillery launched from the ground or from planes in Russian/Belarusian airspace.
Yes, the Russians have cut down on the flying over Ukraine, after too many losses. The Ukrainians claim 10% of the entire Russian Air Force has been taken out, which is likely to be exaggerated, but it’s definitely in the dozens of planes and dozens more helicopters https://www.minusrus.com/en/
The defenders have also just taken delivery of the STARStreak anti-aircraft weapons from the UK, which are rather good at shooting down even supersonic fighter jets. https://youtube.com/watch?v=mnaQ3ANjYGk
It’s a virtual no-fly zone over Ukraine now, without the massive escalation that NATO doing it formally would bring.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
Luck though is proportional to the number of acolytes accompanying you on course, apparently.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
FPT @StillWaters re people not reading past the headlines. Yes I agree, but they still become very aware once they realise there is an effective tax rate of 100% or more and a lot of Americans own shares or run businesses.
As neither of us have read the details I am wondering if it is rather more nuanced than this and is actually simply a tax avoidance measure aimed at the well off. Eg like when we got rid of B&B.
Something @HYUFD said late last night when I challenged the fact that he was getting capital and income mixed up. He referred to short term capital gains being taxed as income. That immediately rang alarm bells re the understanding of the measure. Firstly by definition you can't have an unrealised short term capital gain. If it is unrealised you don't know if it's short term or not yet, so what does that mean. However it is perfectly reasonable to treat short term realized capital gains as income. That would be normal practice here for instance if done on a very regular basis.
Not sure I can be bothered to read the details, but sounds like measures to stop avoidance to me.
I cannot believe 12 hours after posting this you are still going on about it.
Yes of course it is a tax rise aimed at the well off as that is what Democrats do as I originally said over 12 hours ago!
Why not. It is interesting. I'm happy to discuss with @StillWaters who makes sensible post. Feel free to ignore. And it is a bit kettle and pot to complain about going on about it.
You have also completely misread my latest post. I don't know where you got your last post last night from but it was interesting because it raised the issue of it not being a tax rise but closing down tax avoidance.
Also your original posts said no such thing.
To avoid pedentry, obviously closing down tax avoidance should raise more tax.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
Oddly I have seen 15 hole in ones, including one at Celtic Manor which took 20 seconds from landing on the green to go into the hole 20 yeards away down a very slight incline.
FPT @StillWaters re people not reading past the headlines. Yes I agree, but they still become very aware once they realise there is an effective tax rate of 100% or more and a lot of Americans own shares or run businesses.
As neither of us have read the details I am wondering if it is rather more nuanced than this and is actually simply a tax avoidance measure aimed at the well off. Eg like when we got rid of B&B.
Something @HYUFD said late last night when I challenged the fact that he was getting capital and income mixed up. He referred to short term capital gains being taxed as income. That immediately rang alarm bells re the understanding of the measure. Firstly by definition you can't have an unrealised short term capital gain. If it is unrealised you don't know if it's short term or not yet, so what does that mean. However it is perfectly reasonable to treat short term realized capital gains as income. That would be normal practice here for instance if done on a very regular basis.
Not sure I can be bothered to read the details, but sounds like measures to stop avoidance to me.
I cannot believe 12 hours after posting this you are still going on about it.
Yes of course it is a tax rise aimed at the well off as that is what Democrats do as I originally said over 12 hours ago!
Why not. It is interesting. I'm happy to discuss with @StillWaters who makes sensible post. Feel free to ignore. And it is a bit kettle and pot to complain about going on about it.
You have also completely misread my latest post. I don't know where you got your last post last night from but it was interesting because it raised the issue of it not being a tax rise but closing down tax avoidance.
Also your original posts said no such thing.
To avoid pedentry, obviously closing down tax avoidance should raise more tax.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
And in the case of Trump, almost certainly fictional?
Today. The Peace Talks. Zelenskyy has offered neutrality. Correct me where I’m wrong, What he means by this, Ukraine won’t bear arms, but it’s security will be underwritten by “guarantors” UK, US and Turkey.
Question. If the end to the war hinged on that, and they looked to us to sign as guarantor to initiate the peace, with Russia out, right back to how they were out at start of February, as UK PM would you sign to be guarantor?
I’ve had a think on this question, and my answer would be no.
I understand the position of Ukraine is armed neutrality.
I'm not sure what security guarantees we can offer that will be more convincing than the ones offered in 1994, that don't involve a permanent British military base in Ukraine - which presumably wouldn't be seen as very neutral.
Put a military base in Poland, close to the Ukranian border, and invite the Ukranians to train there while arming them to the teeth in Ukraine.
A massive anti-aircraft shield over Ukraine is a bare minimum. The best, the longest range possible. We should start building it now, 20 feet inside Ukraine, then work eastwards to Lviv and Kyiv. Then further out still. The best there is, the longest range there is. But to be used only for Russian incursions into Ukraine.
It would as a system still be at risk from hypersonic missiles launched from within Russia. But other sanctions will have to be used to deal with that.
Isn't there an effective no-fly zone anyway?
According the the Telegraph podcast from a few days ago the Russians are hardly flying at all and most of the damage is being caused by artillery launched from the ground or from planes in Russian/Belarusian airspace.
While the Russian Armed Forces re-prioritise, yes. But any coming assault on the JFO will likely involve CAS.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
Luck though is proportional to the number of acolytes accompanying you on course, apparently.
Over 50 years of playing golf there were but a small number of holes in one each year in our club
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
At the moment after the boundary changes the Conservatives and Labour would be neck and neck on seats on current polls but with the Conservatives almost certainly having won most seats in England alone.
However Starmer would still likely become PM in a hung parliament if he can get SNP and LD support
There are a lot of seats where the Tories will have a first time incumbency bonus.
Yes, though there's a decision to be made on boundary changes, which will help rural seats (good for the Tories) but reduce incumbency bonus.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
Holes in one are more common than generally perceived, in pre internet days there was a profitable betting hustle based on guys putting bets on in high street bookies all over the country based on a hole in one occurring in tournaments at misjudged prices.
Quelle surprise, Trump cheats at golf in any case.
Anyway, from the previous thread. Regarding Covid we don't need to reinstate restrictions but we do need to ask people to think. Covid is everywhere again and even if it isn't a threat to long-term health or our lives for most of us, it's bloody inconvenient.
I'm on the train into that London from Gatwick and am one of very few in a mask. I'm not going to wear one all day - it'll be off on the communal office. But where it's no imposition and it reduces to very low my chance of catching it now why not wear a mask?
I'm way too busy to get Covid. So I wear a mask and think what I am doing. Others could do the same and we wouldn't have the quiet epidemic we are currently suffering.
The evidence that any of the surviving measures reduce the risk of getting Covid is, at best, mixed. Anecdotally, the current wave is catching those who haven't had it yet and even some who have. As the former includes both my wife and myself this is not great news. And I really don't think the virus cares how busy I am right now.
A lot of people I know through extended family, mates, friends of friends, old work colleagues etc are coming down with this sub-variant. I've lost track of how times I have been told 'oh, by the way, so and so, has covid' in last three or four weeks.
Anecdotally, as far as I can see it is a massive wave at moment.
Yes, 1 in 13, supposedly. Reporting is likely to become a problem, since we all know so many who've got it that it seems almost intrusive to mention it instead of quietly self-isolating for 10 days as instructed.
My office returns to part-time (2 days/week) in-office work this week, though I have colleagues who feel that will ismply lead to more and more people being off work altogether.
Eldest Granddaughter did a test at the weekend. Positive. Did another, same day, very weak positive. However, messes up her planned week (uni, major social engagement)
Next day did another Negative. Did a check one. Weak positive. Feels fine.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
And in the case of Trump, almost certainly fictional?
Given Trump has named several professional golfers as eye-witnesses...
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
And in the case of Trump, almost certainly fictional?
If Ernie Els backs it up, it's real. Let's see.
For now, I assume it's real. You get modest golfers who have had multiple holes-in-one at their local club. (Depends where the hole is cut that day too.
I'm happy for Trump to spend the rest of his days trying to emulate the feat....
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
Luck though is proportional to the number of acolytes accompanying you on course, apparently.
My Dad played golf for 40-odd years before getting a hole in one. 30 years after he started playing, my Mum took up the game and got two hole-in-ones in the first seven years she'd been playing.
There might be three or four holes in any round where it's reasonably possible to score a hole in one. A club player might get the ball in the right sort of area in one or two of these. After that, it's the roll of a dice - albeit probably a 500-sided dice.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
FPT @StillWaters re people not reading past the headlines. Yes I agree, but they still become very aware once they realise there is an effective tax rate of 100% or more and a lot of Americans own shares or run businesses.
As neither of us have read the details I am wondering if it is rather more nuanced than this and is actually simply a tax avoidance measure aimed at the well off. Eg like when we got rid of B&B.
Something @HYUFD said late last night when I challenged the fact that he was getting capital and income mixed up. He referred to short term capital gains being taxed as income. That immediately rang alarm bells re the understanding of the measure. Firstly by definition you can't have an unrealised short term capital gain. If it is unrealised you don't know if it's short term or not yet, so what does that mean. However it is perfectly reasonable to treat short term realized capital gains as income. That would be normal practice here for instance if done on a very regular basis.
Not sure I can be bothered to read the details, but sounds like measures to stop avoidance to me.
I cannot believe 12 hours after posting this you are still going on about it.
Yes of course it is a tax rise aimed at the well off as that is what Democrats do as I originally said over 12 hours ago!
Why not. It is interesting. I'm happy to discuss with @StillWaters who makes sensible post. Feel free to ignore. And it is a bit kettle and pot to complain about going on about it.
You have also completely misread my latest post. I don't know where you got your last post last night from but it was interesting because it raised the issue of it not being a tax rise but closing down tax avoidance.
Also your original posts said no such thing.
To avoid pedentry, obviously closing down tax avoidance should raise more tax.
Er... pedantry. ;-)
Excellent. Really made me laugh. Some spelling mistakes are priceless.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
That's biologically illiterate. Your ranting about this subject is idiotic. Women can't have penises and men can't have vaginas. It's really no more complicated than that. A woman is an adult human female. Get that into your thick skull.
Anyway, from the previous thread. Regarding Covid we don't need to reinstate restrictions but we do need to ask people to think. Covid is everywhere again and even if it isn't a threat to long-term health or our lives for most of us, it's bloody inconvenient.
I'm on the train into that London from Gatwick and am one of very few in a mask. I'm not going to wear one all day - it'll be off on the communal office. But where it's no imposition and it reduces to very low my chance of catching it now why not wear a mask?
I'm way too busy to get Covid. So I wear a mask and think what I am doing. Others could do the same and we wouldn't have the quiet epidemic we are currently suffering.
The evidence that any of the surviving measures reduce the risk of getting Covid is, at best, mixed. Anecdotally, the current wave is catching those who haven't had it yet and even some who have. As the former includes both my wife and myself this is not great news. And I really don't think the virus cares how busy I am right now.
A lot of people I know through extended family, mates, friends of friends, old work colleagues etc are coming down with this sub-variant. I've lost track of how times I have been told 'oh, by the way, so and so, has covid' in last three or four weeks.
Anecdotally, as far as I can see it is a massive wave at moment.
Yes, 1 in 13, supposedly. Reporting is likely to become a problem, since we all know so many who've got it that it seems almost intrusive to mention it instead of quietly self-isolating for 10 days as instructed.
My office returns to part-time (2 days/week) in-office work this week, though I have colleagues who feel that will ismply lead to more and more people being off work altogether.
Eldest Granddaughter did a test at the weekend. Positive. Did another, same day, very weak positive. However, messes up her planned week (uni, major social engagement)
Next day did another Negative. Did a check one. Weak positive. Feels fine.
Now she doesn't know what to do.
Yes. The tests seem to be poor at picking up this variant. My brother and his family had a seemingly random sequence of positive, negative, back to positive again results, completely unrelated to symptoms.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I played golf for 50 years and with a handicap of 9 for most of it but did not achieve a hole in one
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
And in the case of Trump, almost certainly fictional?
Probably not
It should be remembered there are only 4 or 5 holes out of 18 that it is even possible
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
CCHQ will play this like they did Corbyn in the last election: targeted, below-the-radar social media messaging to voters previously identified as susceptible. Likewise the Savile smear. Labour can't react because they will not know they need to react (under the radar, remember) or where to address any refutation.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
Holes in one are more common than generally perceived, in pre internet days there was a profitable betting hustle based on guys putting bets on in high street bookies all over the country based on a hole in one occurring in tournaments at misjudged prices.
Quelle surprise, Trump cheats at golf in any case.
Yep, a couple of punters worked out that for the average professional tournament (four rounds, 156 players, half make the cut after two rounds, four par-3 holes on the course) the odds of a hole in one are 5/4, a 44% chance.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Great post.
What I'm not clear about is whether those (say) former men now identifying as women (which is fine as far as I'm concerned in terms of gender) are also demanding that they are female - I mean are they equating women and female or are they accepting that despite being able to choose gender (man/woman) they cannot choose male/female? To put it another way, are they accepting the difference between gender and sex or are they - after demanding for years that gender is recognised as a separate term to sex! - now back-tracking and diluting the term "gender" to mean the same as sex?
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
I'm with you on this issue, but when you say "Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes ..." can you not see that you are merging sexual terms with gender terms (like virtually everyone else is)? To see this issue clearly I think you must treat sex and gender as separate things the former being about reality and the latter about identity.
Anyway, from the previous thread. Regarding Covid we don't need to reinstate restrictions but we do need to ask people to think. Covid is everywhere again and even if it isn't a threat to long-term health or our lives for most of us, it's bloody inconvenient.
I'm on the train into that London from Gatwick and am one of very few in a mask. I'm not going to wear one all day - it'll be off on the communal office. But where it's no imposition and it reduces to very low my chance of catching it now why not wear a mask?
I'm way too busy to get Covid. So I wear a mask and think what I am doing. Others could do the same and we wouldn't have the quiet epidemic we are currently suffering.
The evidence that any of the surviving measures reduce the risk of getting Covid is, at best, mixed. Anecdotally, the current wave is catching those who haven't had it yet and even some who have. As the former includes both my wife and myself this is not great news. And I really don't think the virus cares how busy I am right now.
A lot of people I know through extended family, mates, friends of friends, old work colleagues etc are coming down with this sub-variant. I've lost track of how times I have been told 'oh, by the way, so and so, has covid' in last three or four weeks.
Anecdotally, as far as I can see it is a massive wave at moment.
Yes, 1 in 13, supposedly. Reporting is likely to become a problem, since we all know so many who've got it that it seems almost intrusive to mention it instead of quietly self-isolating for 10 days as instructed.
My office returns to part-time (2 days/week) in-office work this week, though I have colleagues who feel that will ismply lead to more and more people being off work altogether.
Eldest Granddaughter did a test at the weekend. Positive. Did another, same day, very weak positive. However, messes up her planned week (uni, major social engagement)
Next day did another Negative. Did a check one. Weak positive. Feels fine.
Now she doesn't know what to do.
Simple. Just stop testing and go and live life as we all used to pre covid.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Great post.
What I'm not clear about is whether those (say) former men now identifying as women (which is fine as far as I'm concerned in terms of gender) are also demanding that they are female - I mean are they equating women and female or are they accepting that despite being able to choose gender (man/woman) they cannot choose male/female? To put it another way, are they accepting the difference between gender and sex or are they - after demanding for years that gender is recognised as a separate term to sex! - now back-tracking and diluting the term "gender" to mean the same as sex?
AIUI the argument now is that “gender” is real and what matters and “sex” is just something recorded when you were born and but a detail. Gender trumps sex. Always.
Anyway, from the previous thread. Regarding Covid we don't need to reinstate restrictions but we do need to ask people to think. Covid is everywhere again and even if it isn't a threat to long-term health or our lives for most of us, it's bloody inconvenient.
I'm on the train into that London from Gatwick and am one of very few in a mask. I'm not going to wear one all day - it'll be off on the communal office. But where it's no imposition and it reduces to very low my chance of catching it now why not wear a mask?
I'm way too busy to get Covid. So I wear a mask and think what I am doing. Others could do the same and we wouldn't have the quiet epidemic we are currently suffering.
The evidence that any of the surviving measures reduce the risk of getting Covid is, at best, mixed. Anecdotally, the current wave is catching those who haven't had it yet and even some who have. As the former includes both my wife and myself this is not great news. And I really don't think the virus cares how busy I am right now.
A lot of people I know through extended family, mates, friends of friends, old work colleagues etc are coming down with this sub-variant. I've lost track of how times I have been told 'oh, by the way, so and so, has covid' in last three or four weeks.
Anecdotally, as far as I can see it is a massive wave at moment.
Yes, 1 in 13, supposedly. Reporting is likely to become a problem, since we all know so many who've got it that it seems almost intrusive to mention it instead of quietly self-isolating for 10 days as instructed.
My office returns to part-time (2 days/week) in-office work this week, though I have colleagues who feel that will ismply lead to more and more people being off work altogether.
Eldest Granddaughter did a test at the weekend. Positive. Did another, same day, very weak positive. However, messes up her planned week (uni, major social engagement)
Next day did another Negative. Did a check one. Weak positive. Feels fine.
Now she doesn't know what to do.
Yes. The tests seem to be poor at picking up this variant. My brother and his family had a seemingly random sequence of positive, negative, back to positive again results, completely unrelated to symptoms.
Thanks Mr D. Her problem is that she's on a Uni course where she's supposed to be 'in' in at least the early part of this week, then she's due to be a bridesmaid at the end of it. The wedding has already been disrupted two or three times. She feels fine, and has done for weeks.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
CCHQ will play this like they did Corbyn in the last election: targeted, below-the-radar social media messaging to voters previously identified as susceptible. Likewise the Savile smear. Labour can't react because they will not know they need to react (under the radar, remember) or where to address any refutation.
I get that. The issue for me is why is it assumed only the Tories can play that game? It isn't great, but there are plenty of issues that could be raised the other way. Do Labour have a plan for this? If not, why not? Two elections are rarely the same.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You know why. His activists would react to that like he'd said trans people need to be rounded up and executed.
“The debate over that slap and the joke and the apology is gonna consume the next three weeks of discourse” tweeted the Rolling Stone writer Brian Hiatt. “You’re gonna hear takes you can’t even imagine yet.”
Hiatt is right, with the exception of one detail: it won’t be three weeks, it will be more like three days. The ADHD news cycle could barely manage three weeks of sustained attention in response to the greatest security crisis in Europe since the Second World War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine began just four and a half weeks ago, and already is beginning to slip down the ‘top stories’ and ‘trending’ lists generated by news and social media platforms. This morning, 80% of the stories recommended to me by Twitter related to the Will Smith slap while news of ongoing Russian and Ukrainian negotiations barely feature.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
It’s about keeping sexually functional penises out of womens refuges and prisons.
For the very few people who want to transition, there is a long medical process to go through.
It's about how this hypothetical Tory leader is going to handle the "what is a woman?" question in a GE campaign.
Assuming that's how they reply, the interview continues -
"So is it Conservative policy to make a change of gender subject to radical surgery?"
Anyway, from the previous thread. Regarding Covid we don't need to reinstate restrictions but we do need to ask people to think. Covid is everywhere again and even if it isn't a threat to long-term health or our lives for most of us, it's bloody inconvenient.
I'm on the train into that London from Gatwick and am one of very few in a mask. I'm not going to wear one all day - it'll be off on the communal office. But where it's no imposition and it reduces to very low my chance of catching it now why not wear a mask?
I'm way too busy to get Covid. So I wear a mask and think what I am doing. Others could do the same and we wouldn't have the quiet epidemic we are currently suffering.
The evidence that any of the surviving measures reduce the risk of getting Covid is, at best, mixed. Anecdotally, the current wave is catching those who haven't had it yet and even some who have. As the former includes both my wife and myself this is not great news. And I really don't think the virus cares how busy I am right now.
A lot of people I know through extended family, mates, friends of friends, old work colleagues etc are coming down with this sub-variant. I've lost track of how times I have been told 'oh, by the way, so and so, has covid' in last three or four weeks.
Anecdotally, as far as I can see it is a massive wave at moment.
Yes, 1 in 13, supposedly. Reporting is likely to become a problem, since we all know so many who've got it that it seems almost intrusive to mention it instead of quietly self-isolating for 10 days as instructed.
My office returns to part-time (2 days/week) in-office work this week, though I have colleagues who feel that will ismply lead to more and more people being off work altogether.
Eldest Granddaughter did a test at the weekend. Positive. Did another, same day, very weak positive. However, messes up her planned week (uni, major social engagement)
Next day did another Negative. Did a check one. Weak positive. Feels fine.
Now she doesn't know what to do.
Yes. The tests seem to be poor at picking up this variant. My brother and his family had a seemingly random sequence of positive, negative, back to positive again results, completely unrelated to symptoms.
Thanks Mr D. Her problem is that she's on a Uni course where she's supposed to be 'in' in at least the early part of this week, then she's due to be a bridesmaid at the end of it. The wedding has already been disrupted two or three times. She feels fine, and has done for weeks.
Yes. It isn't great just now. My brother is on a new job on a probationary basis where he is entitled to only 2 sick days. He took one because he was genuinely unwell for a day, then didn't know what he ought to be doing for the best. It's the uncertainty that makes it difficult.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
CCHQ will play this like they did Corbyn in the last election: targeted, below-the-radar social media messaging to voters previously identified as susceptible. Likewise the Savile smear. Labour can't react because they will not know they need to react (under the radar, remember) or where to address any refutation.
I get that. The issue for me is why is it assumed only the Tories can play that game? It isn't great, but there are plenty of issues that could be raised the other way. Do Labour have a plan for this? If not, why not?
Given that, inter alia, Johnson has said that he wants the 2028 European football tournament to be played in both Britain and Ukraine, you would have thought there was plenty of opportunity.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Apparently Mums net of all people came out with 'We are all Boris now'
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
CCHQ will play this like they did Corbyn in the last election: targeted, below-the-radar social media messaging to voters previously identified as susceptible. Likewise the Savile smear. Labour can't react because they will not know they need to react (under the radar, remember) or where to address any refutation.
I get that. The issue for me is why is it assumed only the Tories can play that game? It isn't great, but there are plenty of issues that could be raised the other way. Do Labour have a plan for this? If not, why not? Two elections are rarely the same.
it is an appalling indictment of our politics (and unfortunately true) that we just make up policies about our opponents rather than fight them on their real policies.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Apparently Mums net of all people came out with 'We are all Boris now'
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Issue a statement"? Then he and every other Labour politician refers to it - "The party's position is set out in that statement. I have nothing further to add. Next question..... "
Anyway, from the previous thread. Regarding Covid we don't need to reinstate restrictions but we do need to ask people to think. Covid is everywhere again and even if it isn't a threat to long-term health or our lives for most of us, it's bloody inconvenient.
I'm on the train into that London from Gatwick and am one of very few in a mask. I'm not going to wear one all day - it'll be off on the communal office. But where it's no imposition and it reduces to very low my chance of catching it now why not wear a mask?
I'm way too busy to get Covid. So I wear a mask and think what I am doing. Others could do the same and we wouldn't have the quiet epidemic we are currently suffering.
The evidence that any of the surviving measures reduce the risk of getting Covid is, at best, mixed. Anecdotally, the current wave is catching those who haven't had it yet and even some who have. As the former includes both my wife and myself this is not great news. And I really don't think the virus cares how busy I am right now.
A lot of people I know through extended family, mates, friends of friends, old work colleagues etc are coming down with this sub-variant. I've lost track of how times I have been told 'oh, by the way, so and so, has covid' in last three or four weeks.
Anecdotally, as far as I can see it is a massive wave at moment.
All the same kids in my daughter's class are getting it again, apparently in the order they had it last time.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Question - do Lia Thomas the swimmer and Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter have penises? (penes?)
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
The world has moved on and increasingly comprehends the complexities and nuance of gender, sex and language.
Perhaps you can educate:
- Is gender more important than sex in deciding access to services? - What is a "she-cock" and does it belong in women's prisons or refuges? - Is a Lesbian who refuses to suck a "she-cock" a homophobe?
Interested in your thoughts. And reasoning.
I certainly would never presume to tell women that they must accept some bearded brute with a cock as one of their number.
That's quite a muscular framing of the debate, Sean.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Apparently Mums net of all people came out with 'We are all Boris now'
Checking on the publication rules about fixed penalties I came across the following in an artice.
"Other legislation coming into effect includes the introduction of mandatory speed limiters on all production cars produced from July 2022. These limiters will use GPS data or traffic sign recognition technology to determine the speed limit of the road you’re on and stop you from exceeding it."
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
CCHQ will play this like they did Corbyn in the last election: targeted, below-the-radar social media messaging to voters previously identified as susceptible. Likewise the Savile smear. Labour can't react because they will not know they need to react (under the radar, remember) or where to address any refutation.
Yes. As a male in my 40s I expect I'd be seeing a lot of stuff on social media adverts about this during an election campaign.
Social media advertising has been a toxic development in our politics.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
Because the labour activist base TRA’s conflate any argument that does not simply follow their view that cross dressing men are women to be the equivalent of denying trans peoples existence and want them to be eradicated. Just look at the reactions to Linehan and Rowling.
Has he ever defended the labour MP for Canterbury or her right to her opinion ?
Of course not. He’s spineless.
How could he be expected to make the right call in office when in opposition he’s terrified of vocal activists ?
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
CCHQ will play this like they did Corbyn in the last election: targeted, below-the-radar social media messaging to voters previously identified as susceptible. Likewise the Savile smear. Labour can't react because they will not know they need to react (under the radar, remember) or where to address any refutation.
I get that. The issue for me is why is it assumed only the Tories can play that game? It isn't great, but there are plenty of issues that could be raised the other way. Do Labour have a plan for this? If not, why not? Two elections are rarely the same.
it is an appalling indictment of our politics (and unfortunately true) that we just make up policies about our opponents rather than fight them on their real policies.
Oh indeed. However. You can't cede one area of campaigning, however sub-optimal, to your opponents. I'd prefer no micro-targetting at all. But it can't happen.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Clearly nothing should be even contemplated which places women at risk. If women wish to, for example, join the Armed Forces, then that's up to them, and a matter for military discipline. Otherwise no, no increasing of risk.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Apparently Mums net of all people came out with 'We are all Boris now'
What does that mean Big G?
What it says
Mumsnet post were pro Boris on the issue
Cheers. Really didn't get it. So as I suggested banging on about it works.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Issue a statement"? Then he and every other Labour politician refers to it - "The party's position is set out in that statement. I have nothing further to add. Next question..... "
Personally, I don't think that would work politically from a presentation point of view, and imagine the Labour leadership feel the same. It would still be an open wound to attack for interviewers, and over time, repeated avoidance of discussion would not be enough from one side of the debate, who would still feel him to be evasive in interviews, and at the same time piss off others on the other side of the debate.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
I'm with you on this issue, but when you say "Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes ..." can you not see that you are merging sexual terms with gender terms (like virtually everyone else is)? To see this issue clearly I think you must treat sex and gender as separate things the former being about reality and the latter about identity.
I am not. That is why I make the distinction between being of the male sex but being treated legally as a woman (gender). Sex cannot be changed and is real. I have no idea what gender is. But some people have dysphoria and need to be treated accordingly.
Everyone else who talks about non-binary etc is either talking about personality or fetishes or whatever. It is of no interest to me whatsoever and should have no legal consequences. People can describe themselves how they want. But they are not entitled to bully others into agreeing with their own self-identification. I will come to my own view of people and describe them in my own words.
Yes, I agree with the header possibly 260-280 seats for Labour. Winning back most of the seats they lost in 2019 (apart from a few like Bassetlaw and Dudley N) plus some additional seats in North (particularly West Yorkshire) and South.
Labour ending up 2% behind like 2017 would still represent the same swing Cameron got in 2010.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You know why. His activists would react to that like he'd said trans people need to be rounded up and executed.
If so, he's a coward and unfit to be leader let alone PM.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Question - do Lia Thomas the swimmer and Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter have penises? (penes?)
Thomas certainly does according to other females swimmers who they have competed against.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Great post.
What I'm not clear about is whether those (say) former men now identifying as women (which is fine as far as I'm concerned in terms of gender) are also demanding that they are female - I mean are they equating women and female or are they accepting that despite being able to choose gender (man/woman) they cannot choose male/female? To put it another way, are they accepting the difference between gender and sex or are they - after demanding for years that gender is recognised as a separate term to sex! - now back-tracking and diluting the term "gender" to mean the same as sex?
Seems to be the latter - for example there was someone celebrating that they'd received a (pointless) cervical smear appointment letter, because it was a sign that they were being treated as a woman, despite not being female.
I thought the point of recognising gender as different to sex was that all the things we put in gender were human-created, and so not fixed and immutable, and so your didn't have to abide by gender roles. But if you can change gender then it suggests these are separate categories that represent meaningful differences.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
The line I'd take to that is: "I let the Conservative leader pursue his preoccupation with sexual matters; I've no comment on any of them, and my concern is sorting the economy out and making people better off."
That is a good reply, but it doesn't necessarily kill it off if the Tories bang on about it. This sort of tactic is not unknown by all parties and they have been known to work. I mean how many people thought the EU banned straight bananas?
CCHQ will play this like they did Corbyn in the last election: targeted, below-the-radar social media messaging to voters previously identified as susceptible. Likewise the Savile smear. Labour can't react because they will not know they need to react (under the radar, remember) or where to address any refutation.
I think there was plenty "above the radar" about Corbyn for voters to realise he was unsuitable as PM. Obviously many of us could also see that Johnson was unsuitable, but he was less unsuitable than Corbyn
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Issue a statement"? Then he and every other Labour politician refers to it - "The party's position is set out in that statement. I have nothing further to add. Next question..... "
Personally, I don't think that would work politically from a presentation point of view, and imagine the Labour leadership feel the same. It would still be an open wound to attack for interviewers, and over time, repeated avoidance of discussion would not be enough from one side of the debate, who would still feel him to be evasive in interviews, and at the same time piss off others on the other side of the debate.
I don't think that's the reason. It's because they are in hock to the TRA's but don't want to admit it. See my response to @NickPalmer.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
Yep there's a lot of bad faith comms around this one.
I'm happy with either "adult human female" or (my pref) "adult of the female gender" as an answer but the question is being set as a trap for Labour atm and my point is to show how it can also be set as a trap for the Tories.
It's probably a good issue for them, the Tories, but it's not risk free.
Checking on the publication rules about fixed penalties I came across the following in an artice.
"Other legislation coming into effect includes the introduction of mandatory speed limiters on all production cars produced from July 2022. These limiters will use GPS data or traffic sign recognition technology to determine the speed limit of the road you’re on and stop you from exceeding it."
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Clearly nothing should be even contemplated which places women at risk. If women wish to, for example, join the Armed Forces, then that's up to them, and a matter for military discipline. Otherwise no, no increasing of risk.
The current Scottish government's proposed Bill will put women at risk and will affect women in this country. Labour support it in Scotland. So yes they do support increasing risk for women.
Checking on the publication rules about fixed penalties I came across the following in an artice.
"Other legislation coming into effect includes the introduction of mandatory speed limiters on all production cars produced from July 2022. These limiters will use GPS data or traffic sign recognition technology to determine the speed limit of the road you’re on and stop you from exceeding it."
Anyone else heard of this legislation?
Don't worry, Dura Ace will know a bloke who can bypass it....
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Great post.
What I'm not clear about is whether those (say) former men now identifying as women (which is fine as far as I'm concerned in terms of gender) are also demanding that they are female - I mean are they equating women and female or are they accepting that despite being able to choose gender (man/woman) they cannot choose male/female? To put it another way, are they accepting the difference between gender and sex or are they - after demanding for years that gender is recognised as a separate term to sex! - now back-tracking and diluting the term "gender" to mean the same as sex?
Seems to be the latter - for example there was someone celebrating that they'd received a (pointless) cervical smear appointment letter, because it was a sign that they were being treated as a woman, despite not being female.
I thought the point of recognising gender as different to sex was that all the things we put in gender were human-created, and so not fixed and immutable, and so your didn't have to abide by gender roles. But if you can change gender then it suggests these are separate categories that represent meaningful differences.
Quite a few trans women claim to have periods as well.
Although it really isn’t physically possible. But to point that out invites a deluge of abuse from TRA’s
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Great post.
What I'm not clear about is whether those (say) former men now identifying as women (which is fine as far as I'm concerned in terms of gender) are also demanding that they are female - I mean are they equating women and female or are they accepting that despite being able to choose gender (man/woman) they cannot choose male/female? To put it another way, are they accepting the difference between gender and sex or are they - after demanding for years that gender is recognised as a separate term to sex! - now back-tracking and diluting the term "gender" to mean the same as sex?
AIUI the argument now is that “gender” is real and what matters and “sex” is just something recorded when you were born and but a detail. Gender trumps sex. Always.
Yes, this idea that sex is "assigned" at birth, implying that it is completely arbitrary, is totally unscientific.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Issue a statement"? Then he and every other Labour politician refers to it - "The party's position is set out in that statement. I have nothing further to add. Next question..... "
Personally, I don't think that would work politically from a presentation point of view, and imagine the Labour leadership feel the same. It would still be an open wound to attack for interviewers, and over time, repeated avoidance of discussion would not be enough from one side of the debate, who would still feel him to be evasive in interviews, and at the same time piss off others on the other side of the debate.
I don't think that's the reason. It's because they are in hock to the TRA's but don't want to admit it. See my response to @NickPalmer.
When people feel strongly about an issue they often end up with a "with us or against us" attitude and both "sides" of this debate seem to have taken that. There are plenty of us in the middle ground who are not on either side, for a whole range of reasons.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
I felt like I was stood next to Colin Robinson while reading that.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
It's hard, most golfers never manage one, mine in Sep last year was such a thrill, but I wouldn't believe Trump got one unless I saw it with my own eyes - he's known for cheating at golf.
The Russian Foreign Ministry claims that the #US and its allies launched a "massive cyber campaign" against #Russia, with hundreds of thousands of attacks every day. Russia warns that will have "grave consequences"
According to the ministry the army of "cyber mercenaries operating against Russia" are given "combat missions" which border on "terrorism"
[preparing the ground for a cyber attack against the US?]
Why do people write such Apprentice-style self-aggrandising guff on their CVs? No you are not "An inspirational commercial leader with [ ] a sharp eye for detail" - you're coming to the headhunter saying the last 2 moves you made were shit and you want to backtrack and get some stability having fucked up your career path.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You know why. His activists would react to that like he'd said trans people need to be rounded up and executed.
If so, he's a coward and unfit to be leader let alone PM.
Yep.
By the way, this sort of thing is why people like me say they could only ever vote conservative - because, no matter how awful the Tories look, and no matter how reasonable and competent the Labour front bench looks, the party is -at the end of the day - led by its members. And a significant proportion of those members are complete lunatics.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Question - do Lia Thomas the swimmer and Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter have penises? (penes?)
The former certainly does, is still sexually attracted to women, dates them, displays their body in the womens changing room and has, according to reports by team mates, made them feel uncomfortable but still does so.
I don't believe Hubbard has surgically transitioned either. Something like 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria don't surgically transition, AIUI.
IMHO, it's about 50/50 whether the Conservatives win the next election. The voters are remarkably forgiving, and Boris has got two big calls right - Covid and Ukraine.
I think there is a more than 50% chance the Conservatives win most seats or even a majority in England on current polls after the boundary changes. Yet also a more than 50% chance Starmer becomes UK PM with SNP support
I'd say something like 35-40% chance of a Tory majority and 50% chance of the Tories remaining in power. Tories heavily favoured to retain most seats although I personally think they'll struggle to get more than 300 under any leader unless Johnson or his potential successor is 10%+ ahead as best PM making direct comparisons with 2017.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
There are two levels of this for all parties. Knockabout, in which people contest for gotcha moments and wokery positions.
The other level is: What is the current UK law on sex, gender and what is and is not allowed in medical, practical and moral arrangements; and what ways would your party change it/keep it the same/reverse it.
That second level is quite hard. Few politicians could even tell you the present state of law and practice.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
That figure seems surprisingly high. I'd be less surprised if it's a figure which has been artificially inflated by the trans lobby.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
It’s about keeping sexually functional penises out of womens refuges and prisons.
For the very few people who want to transition, there is a long medical process to go through.
It's about how this hypothetical Tory leader is going to handle the "what is a woman?" question in a GE campaign.
Assuming that's how they reply, the interview continues -
"So is it Conservative policy to make a change of gender subject to radical surgery?"
You're fighting heuristics. Short of sitting retirees down for an hour or two on gender studies Labour are going to loose the argument.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Great post.
What I'm not clear about is whether those (say) former men now identifying as women (which is fine as far as I'm concerned in terms of gender) are also demanding that they are female - I mean are they equating women and female or are they accepting that despite being able to choose gender (man/woman) they cannot choose male/female? To put it another way, are they accepting the difference between gender and sex or are they - after demanding for years that gender is recognised as a separate term to sex! - now back-tracking and diluting the term "gender" to mean the same as sex?
Seems to be the latter - for example there was someone celebrating that they'd received a (pointless) cervical smear appointment letter, because it was a sign that they were being treated as a woman, despite not being female.
I thought the point of recognising gender as different to sex was that all the things we put in gender were human-created, and so not fixed and immutable, and so your didn't have to abide by gender roles. But if you can change gender then it suggests these are separate categories that represent meaningful differences.
There were also trans women reacting aggressively to being sent cervical smear letters, saying that they don’t need them so why are they being sent out at all?
No matter what public health authorities do, there will be a screaming bunch of activists saying they are doing it wrong.
The Russian Foreign Ministry claims that the #US and its allies launched a "massive cyber campaign" against #Russia, with hundreds of thousands of attacks every day. Russia warns that will have "grave consequences"
According to the ministry the army of "cyber mercenaries operating against Russia" are given "combat missions" which border on "terrorism"
[preparing the ground for a cyber attack against the US?]
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
It’s about keeping sexually functional penises out of womens refuges and prisons.
For the very few people who want to transition, there is a long medical process to go through.
It's about how this hypothetical Tory leader is going to handle the "what is a woman?" question in a GE campaign.
Assuming that's how they reply, the interview continues -
"So is it Conservative policy to make a change of gender subject to radical surgery?"
To which the answer is "No - just a medical diagnosis of dysphoria and we will speed up the time to get that." Or "No - the current position is a fair balance between the right of those with dysphoria and others."
BTW have you yet noticed that that report you keep banging on about got it fundamentally wrong when it said that those wishing to change gender had to go before a panel and that this was degrading. There is no such panel. It is all done on paper.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Question - do Lia Thomas the swimmer and Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter have penises? (penes?)
The former certainly does, is still sexually attracted to women, dates them, displays their body in the womens changing room and has, according to reports by team mates, made them feel uncomfortable but still does so.
I don't believe Hubbard has surgically transitioned either. Something like 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria don't surgically transition, AIUI.
Well then the situation is even more ridiculous than I had thought. I had thought they had had the appropriate surgery but still, understandably, retained a male shape, and that that was what the controversy was about. I had felt vaguely guilty about the thought 'that's a man in a woman's swimming costume'. But it turns out that's exactly the situation.
Comments
You have also completely misread my latest post. I don't know where you got your last post last night from but it was interesting because it raised the issue of it not being a tax rise but closing down tax avoidance.
Also your original posts said no such thing.
According the the Telegraph podcast from a few days ago the Russians are hardly flying at all and most of the damage is being caused by artillery launched from the ground or from planes in Russian/Belarusian airspace.
https://unherd.com/thepost/why-the-will-smith-slap-is-good-news/
“The debate over that slap and the joke and the apology is gonna consume the next three weeks of discourse” tweeted the Rolling Stone writer Brian Hiatt. “You’re gonna hear takes you can’t even imagine yet.”
Hiatt is right, with the exception of one detail: it won’t be three weeks, it will be more like three days. The ADHD news cycle could barely manage three weeks of sustained attention in response to the greatest security crisis in Europe since the Second World War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine began just four and a half weeks ago, and already is beginning to slip down the ‘top stories’ and ‘trending’ lists generated by news and social media platforms. This morning, 80% of the stories recommended to me by Twitter related to the Will Smith slap while news of ongoing Russian and Ukrainian negotiations barely feature.
https://twitter.com/ballotboxscot/status/1508484686879805446?s=21
Johnson won't be able to get the pen onto the paper fast enough.
And don't even think about letting Truss, as Foreign Sec do it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60911798
My office returns to part-time (2 days/week) in-office work this week, though I have colleagues who feel that will ismply lead to more and more people being off work altogether.
The defenders have also just taken delivery of the STARStreak anti-aircraft weapons from the UK, which are rather good at shooting down even supersonic fighter jets. https://youtube.com/watch?v=mnaQ3ANjYGk
It’s a virtual no-fly zone over Ukraine now, without the massive escalation that NATO doing it formally would bring.
Several near misses, but I would also add I never played in a match with anyone who holed out in one during the match
So yes, it is difficult and most would say lucky
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely
rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
@PippaCrerar
·
43m
No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1508722115532541953
And in the case of Trump, almost certainly fictional?
Quelle surprise, Trump cheats at golf in any case.
https://golf.com/lifestyle/celebrities/how-why-president-trump-cheats-golf-playing-tiger-woods/
Next day did another Negative. Did a check one. Weak positive. Feels fine.
Now she doesn't know what to do.
For now, I assume it's real. You get modest golfers who have had multiple holes-in-one at their local club. (Depends where the hole is cut that day too.
I'm happy for Trump to spend the rest of his days trying to emulate the feat....
There might be three or four holes in any round where it's reasonably possible to score a hole in one. A club player might get the ball in the right sort of area in one or two of these. After that, it's the roll of a dice - albeit probably a 500-sided dice.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
My brother and his family had a seemingly random sequence of positive, negative, back to positive again results, completely unrelated to symptoms.
It should be remembered there are only 4 or 5 holes out of 18 that it is even possible
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
https://www.hightechgambling.com/sport-betting/betting-hole-one-golf
A lot of bookies were offering silly odds of up to 100/1 for any given tournament, not understanding the true odds.
What I'm not clear about is whether those (say) former men now identifying as women (which is fine as far as I'm concerned in terms of gender) are also demanding that they are female - I mean are they equating women and female or are they accepting that despite being able to choose gender (man/woman) they cannot choose male/female? To put it another way, are they accepting the difference between gender and sex or are they - after demanding for years that gender is recognised as a separate term to sex! - now back-tracking and diluting the term "gender" to mean the same as sex?
She feels fine, and has done for weeks.
The issue for me is why is it assumed only the Tories can play that game? It isn't great, but there are plenty of issues that could be raised the other way.
Do Labour have a plan for this? If not, why not?
Two elections are rarely the same.
https://twitter.com/matthewdancona/status/1508404748361285632?s=21&t=U6cEp-XO4lte1hF1CRX_8w
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Assuming that's how they reply, the interview continues -
"So is it Conservative policy to make a change of gender subject to radical surgery?"
It's the uncertainty that makes it difficult.
Edited to correct.
Mumsnet post were pro Boris on the issue
"Other legislation coming into effect includes the introduction of mandatory speed limiters on all production cars produced from July 2022. These limiters will use GPS data or traffic sign recognition technology to determine the speed limit of the road you’re on and stop you from exceeding it."
Anyone else heard of this legislation?
Social media advertising has been a toxic development in our politics.
Has he ever defended the labour MP for Canterbury or her right to her opinion ?
Of course not. He’s spineless.
How could he be expected to make the right call in office when in opposition he’s terrified of vocal activists ?
However. You can't cede one area of campaigning, however sub-optimal, to your opponents. I'd prefer no micro-targetting at all. But it can't happen.
Everyone else who talks about non-binary etc is either talking about personality or fetishes or whatever. It is of no interest to me whatsoever and should have no legal consequences. People can describe themselves how they want. But they are not entitled to bully others into agreeing with their own self-identification. I will come to my own view of people and describe them in my own words.
Labour ending up 2% behind like 2017 would still represent the same swing Cameron got in 2010.
I thought the point of recognising gender as different to sex was that all the things we put in gender were human-created, and so not fixed and immutable, and so your didn't have to abide by gender roles. But if you can change gender then it suggests these are separate categories that represent meaningful differences.
I'm happy with either "adult human female" or (my pref) "adult of the female gender" as an answer but the question is being set as a trap for Labour atm and my point is to show how it can also be set as a trap for the Tories.
It's probably a good issue for them, the Tories, but it's not risk free.
Although it really isn’t physically possible. But to point that out invites a deluge of abuse from TRA’s
According to the ministry the army of "cyber mercenaries operating against Russia" are given "combat missions" which border on "terrorism"
[preparing the ground for a cyber attack against the US?]
https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1508738959991529475
By the way, this sort of thing is why people like me say they could only ever vote conservative - because, no matter how awful the Tories look, and no matter how reasonable and competent the Labour front bench looks, the party is -at the end of the day - led by its members. And a significant proportion of those members are complete lunatics.
I don't believe Hubbard has surgically transitioned either. Something like 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria don't surgically transition, AIUI.
No matter what public health authorities do, there will be a screaming bunch of activists saying they are doing it wrong.
https://www.politicalite.com/dumb-lefties-alert/trans-nh-mess-cash-strapped-nhs-give-transgender-women-smear-tests-avoid-gender-dysphoria/
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/03/28/2242251/ukrainian-telecom-companys-internet-service-disrupted-by-powerful-cyberattack
BTW have you yet noticed that that report you keep banging on about got it fundamentally wrong when it said that those wishing to change gender had to go before a panel and that this was degrading. There is no such panel. It is all done on paper.