Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
Well, it was a fairly dramatic reduction in use of military force.
An absolutely classic chart/graph/map. The little 'un was asking about Ukraine a couple of weeks ago, and I showed him that as part of a sadly short discussion that covered pretty much all I knew about the country.
Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has appeared at peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Turkey. He was seen talking to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is mediating in the talks in Istanbul.
Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
It does indeed appear that he is going for advance payment of capital gains tax, on unrealised gains of shareholdings for individuals with net worth over $100m.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
It's not a question of telling people they are wrong. It is the "moral" answer precisely because it is the answer that respects people's wish to live how they choose. If you want to respect that choice then you have to accept that some women do indeed have a penis, however wrong that sounds or however uncomfortable that makes us feel. It sounds wrong to me too and makes me feel uncomfortable too, FWIW.
Absolutely - but whether that acceptance has to extend to allowing those people into women's prisons, toilets and sports requires much more discussion surely. We all ahve the right to live our own lives to the degree that does not impinge on the rights and safety of others.
Sure, let's have the discussion. I'd be interested in answers to the question I posed earlier - does anyone think that forcing trans women to use male toilets (or indeed prisons) would result in fewer assaults overall?
Transwomen prisoners should be in a transwomen annex to an existing prison, where they do not have access to female prisoners in intimate situations ie no shared cells or loos / changing facilities etc. any transwoman convicted of a sexual offence or offence of violence against a woman or child should not be in a woman's prison at all. They can be in a special transgender annex in a man's prison.
As for loos, have gender neutral loos if there is space or make them a subset of male loos. Transwomen retain male bodies. I do not want them attacked but if they are by other men they have a good chance of fighting back because it is a biological male on male fight. Whereas it is not an equal fight between a biological male and a woman.
But the answer is gender neutral loos with closed cubicles in as many places as possible in addition to female only loos.
It was very unpopular for England to take the knee here as I recall. Weird how that all went quiet
I think it lacked a bit of context at the time, and the players have made their case very well. You may not agree but the actions of some over the 'black lives matter' campaign were divisive for some people. There are still huge problems with racism in the UK, but many of us pride ourselves on the strides that have been taken in the last 40 years. We are nowhere near as bad as the USA, and so some of the nonsence that spread to here upset people. Its right to continually look at history and learn from it. Colston has been a controversial figure in Bristol for many years. Churchill for many is an absolute hero, for others less so. He was a man of his time, and its hard to judge any historical figure by the standards of 2022. What the footballers have done is win people over to their point of view, so well done them.
I think the soccer team pitched it perfectly and when the general public accepted it was a well meaning gesture against racism and not support for the extremists who wanted to defund the police it’s been warmly welcomed.
Just think. Engaging with people and explaining the reasoning rather than telling them they are all stupid bigots bore fruit. Shocked.
Quite. I think they have done very well. That said there are still a lot of issues in football. The progression of players of colour after their playing career into coaching is in stark contrast to their manifold success on the field.
Interestingly, coaching is actually going the over way....Parallel track for those wanting to elite coaches and managers starts among those who never made it really made it as a pro. With the enormous increase in how sophificated the tactical / statistical side of the game is, we will increasing see those who have specialised in this.
We are already seeing it. John Herdman, Canada manager, never a pro. Steve Holland, England coach, no real pro career. Thomas Frank, Brentford manager, never a pro. Bruno Lage, no real pro career. Ralf Rangnick, limited pro career. Thomas Tuchel, limited pro caeer. etc etc etc
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
"poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed."
That comment might say more about your attitude than you intended...
Could you imagine the reaction if someone said men won't wife up women who are rude, smelly and self obsessed.....
I was describing the response of men on here to my header. It was some men who raised the issue of incels. In the comments. Not me - as you'd realise if you'd read my header.
It was very unpopular for England to take the knee here as I recall. Weird how that all went quiet
I think it lacked a bit of context at the time, and the players have made their case very well. You may not agree but the actions of some over the 'black lives matter' campaign were divisive for some people. There are still huge problems with racism in the UK, but many of us pride ourselves on the strides that have been taken in the last 40 years. We are nowhere near as bad as the USA, and so some of the nonsence that spread to here upset people. Its right to continually look at history and learn from it. Colston has been a controversial figure in Bristol for many years. Churchill for many is an absolute hero, for others less so. He was a man of his time, and its hard to judge any historical figure by the standards of 2022. What the footballers have done is win people over to their point of view, so well done them.
I think the soccer team pitched it perfectly and when the general public accepted it was a well meaning gesture against racism and not support for the extremists who wanted to defund the police it’s been warmly welcomed.
Just think. Engaging with people and explaining the reasoning rather than telling them they are all stupid bigots bore fruit. Shocked.
Quite. I think they have done very well. That said there are still a lot of issues in football. The progression of players of colour after their playing career into coaching is in stark contrast to their manifold success on the field.
Interestingly, coaching is actually going the over way....Parallel track for those wanting to elite coaches and managers starts among those who never made it really made it as a pro. With the enormous increase in how sophificated the tactical / statistical side of the game is, we will increasing see those who have specialised in this.
We are already seeing it. John Herdman, Canada manager, never a pro. Steve Holland, England coach, no real pro career. Thomas Frank, Brentford manager, never a pro. Bruno Lage, no real pro career. Ralf Rangnick, limited pro career. Thomas Tuchel, limited pro caeer. etc etc etc
Thats interesting. I guess that there shouldn't be a need to be a great player to be a great manager, and if you restrict it to those who have played at top level you reduce the pool of talent massively.
I know historically there has been a bit of an attitude that you only 'understand' football if you have played it, but thats probably slipping a bit now. Jose Mourinho as a trail blazer.
Seems like a blatant PR misstep? Maybe she doesn’t care anymore
He's going to a memorial service for his father, for heaven's sake. Even convicted criminals are allowed to attend funerals. People have lost their mind over Andrew.
Seems like a blatant PR misstep? Maybe she doesn’t care anymore
He's going to a memorial service for his father, for heaven's sake. Even convicted criminals are allowed to attend funerals. People have lost their mind over Andrew.
Exactly. The Kray twins went to their Moms funeral after all.
I wish the gender debates were focussed on the bigger issues:
- How to improve treatment (funding, waiting times) for those suffering from gender dysphoria - Clamp down on genuine acts of transphobia (e.g. assaults, harassment) - Raise awareness by showing positive examples to help normalise it in society
Instead, it has become a campaign to remove any reference to a sex-based definition of women (strangely focussed the definition of women, not men); campaigning for self-identification with no regard to sex-based rights; and making sure everyone puts pronouns in email signatures...
On much of the left it has been framed as a "right vs. wrong" issue, much in the way gay rights were 15 years ago, and not as a balancing act between the rights of two groups that face various forms of discrimination.
Perhaps my school's most famous alumni was Quentin Crisp. His story shows how far we have come, and how far we still have to go.
Reflecting on it, one aspect of the issue I have with the move towards everyone defining their gender is that I think a boy or a man should be able to do whatever he wishes without feeling the need to call himself a woman. Wear dresses and makeup. Do dancing rather than sport. Wear pink and not blue. The idea that these are "female" things are primarily social constructs - in the same way there is no issue with girls/women wearing suits, playing rugby and wearing blue.
Let boys and girls, men and women do whatever they hell they want without receiving abuse or needing a new label, and we'll have taken a much bigger leap forward than is possible from resolving the current gender wars.
I do wish society could accept this. My eldest (21) is now non-binary and for the life of me I still don't know what that means. Not confirming to gender stereotypes? Great - men can still be men and have sex with every gender and wear a frock and shave their legs and grow a beard and whatever. Why do you have to cease being a man to do whatever you want?
100+ candidates is reasonable for a year old party but I don't think they're likely to get any elected.
They'll probably do least badly in the Northeast though where they're more likely to get transfers from socially Conservative Tory and independent voters. 1 or 2 seats in those areas would be a great result for them.
Scottish local elections are under STV, so I would’ve thought some hope for Alba to win seats.
I can confirm that handy Alex has not appeared as an Alba candidate for the Aberdeenshire council election. We (Aberdeenshire LibDems) were wondering if he would be on their list. No such fun.
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...
What a stupid question given that a large portion of the population has been forced into doing that for the past month or so.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
Boo - appointment delayed.
There is no requirement for mandatory radical surgery. Never has been.
We have a legal route to change gender. What people like you fail to answer is why it should be made easier than it is.
Errors in that report and what Caroline Nokes, its Chair has said. For starters:-
- It claims that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. Wrong: the NHS does not describe it as such. - It says there should be no requirement for a medical diagnosis to get a GRC but then asks for better medical treatment. Well, if it's not a medical issue why does it need medical treatment? If it is, why abandon the need for a medical diagnosis. Just one example of its incoherent thinking. - It wrongly describes what the so-called spousal veto is. It also wrongly says that a spouse's consent is needed to live in your acquired gender. Not so. - It removes the option for a spouse to get a divorce rather than an annulment. Why? - It says that a panel of strangers has to judge your femininity or masculinity before granting a GRC. Not so. - It says that providing documents - eg of name changes etc is "dehumanising" and "cruel". Why? This is asserted by TRAs. Most official documents are obtained by people providing evidence of their identity. In what sense is it therefore dehumanising to ask trans people to do the same?
And so on. It is not a well thought out report. Its principal failing is that it does not explain how the sex-based rights of natal born women are to be preserved if self-ID goes through.
It is a question which is often asked. But never answered. It needs to be.
That's a mix of what you say are factual errors and questions you have and points where you detect incoherence. Fair enough. I can't answer them all here and now. Maybe I can't answer some of them at all. But no way is it a discredited report. It's pretty thorough and makes the case well for the same reforms that several other countries have done, some of them quite a long time ago. AFAIK none are wishing to repeal. Where the reform has been done it's worked out ok, an easier process helping trans people with nobody else hurt. As I say, I support it but with controls in certain areas. Let's see how it works in Scotland.
But my point here is how this so-called commonsense stuff like "women cannot have a penis" or "men cannot have a cervix" is actually, if you follow the logic, a repudiation of long existing trans rights. Because, as you yourself are aware but I think many aren't, the legal route to change gender (which has existed for decades) has never involved mandatory surgery. For those statements to hold (precisely as opposed to casually) it would now need to, or alternatively the right to change gender at all would need to be removed.
Thing is, we get so much thrown one way on this and I just wanted to zap something back in kind. So, you know, let's have Kay Burley & Co badgering Tory politicians with "Why can't you admit that women can have a penis?" and if they won't be clear on it, let's then have constant stories that "the Tories don't recognize trans people and want to erase them!"
I think that's only fair. Or rather it balances out the unfairness a little.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
The dawn of the encrypted ECU and secure Canbus with allow/deny lists means this will actually be quite hard to disable.
It will mean a very robust market in pre-2024 muscle cars though.
Until you can't get insurance without retro fitting one.
Muscle cars are pre 1975 USDM V8s with live rear axles (so Corvettes don't count) and are a tiny niche market in the UK anyway.
I don't think it will push up the value of pre-2022 cars because the number of people with the fortitude and clarity of purpose to drive at over 112mph regularly n the road AND base their new car purchasing decisions on that is very, very small.
When it eventually comes in for motorcycles I could see the last of the unfettered models being very desirable as, in my experience, a lot more very high speed larks are done on two wheels than four. I did 165mph in the rain yesterday. Lol.
Bald tyres and a bottle of Jack?
New Bridgestone Battlax RS11 120/70/17 (front) and 190/55/17 (rear),
Don't drink alcohol as it attenuates revolutionary militancy.
The October Revolution without vodka would have been terrifying indeed.
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
You got a little more positive support than you recall, including from @Northern_Al who wrote: "An absolutely excellent header, Cyclefree. I agree with every word."
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
Ukraine perhaps? In my experience global crises tend to send a lot of voters back to their comfort zone. If the Tories had a decent leader instead of a clown they would probably be ahead.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
It's not a question of telling people they are wrong. It is the "moral" answer precisely because it is the answer that respects people's wish to live how they choose. If you want to respect that choice then you have to accept that some women do indeed have a penis, however wrong that sounds or however uncomfortable that makes us feel. It sounds wrong to me too and makes me feel uncomfortable too, FWIW.
Absolutely - but whether that acceptance has to extend to allowing those people into women's prisons, toilets and sports requires much more discussion surely. We all ahve the right to live our own lives to the degree that does not impinge on the rights and safety of others.
Sure, let's have the discussion. I'd be interested in answers to the question I posed earlier - does anyone think that forcing trans women to use male toilets (or indeed prisons) would result in fewer assaults overall?
Transwomen prisoners should be in a transwomen annex to an existing prison, where they do not have access to female prisoners in intimate situations ie no shared cells or loos / changing facilities etc. any transwoman convicted of a sexual offence or offence of violence against a woman or child should not be in a woman's prison at all. They can be in a special transgender annex in a man's prison.
As for loos, have gender neutral loos if there is space or make them a subset of male loos. Transwomen retain male bodies. I do not want them attacked but if they are by other men they have a good chance of fighting back because it is a biological male on male fight. Whereas it is not an equal fight between a biological male and a woman.
But the answer is gender neutral loos with closed cubicles in as many places as possible in addition to female only loos.
On the question of prisons, I refer to the paper from Dundee I posted earlier.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
CHB and Kinabalu today and every time it has come up. Others too. We get repeatedly told that people don't care about it - reminds me very much of the EU stuff prior to the referendum.
I find it an interesting and important issue. I'm also struck by how it's become - uniquely here in the UK - such an incredibly divisive and consuming topic in digital politics. Why is that? The answer, which I don't have, would be illuminating, I think.
But as to here on PB, it's almost invariably posters of a right wing persuasion (or of course Cyclefree, who isn't really right wing but is just her) who bring the subject up. You'll notice most on the left will take a pass and that includes me a lot of the time, although not today by the looks of it.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
CHB and Kinabalu today and every time it has come up. Others too. We get repeatedly told that people don't care about it - reminds me very much of the EU stuff prior to the referendum.
I find it an interesting and important issue. I'm also struck by how it's become - uniquely here in the UK - such an incredibly divisive and consuming topic in digital politics. Why is that? The answer, which I don't have, would be illuminating, I think.
But as to here on PB, it's almost invariably posters of a right wing persuasion (or of course Cyclefree, who isn't really right wing but is just her) who bring the subject up. You'll notice most on the left will take a pass and that includes me a lot of the time, although not today by the looks of it.
People care about their gender identity. It’s primal.
However, on one occasion when someone got it wrong it nearly cost me my life.
You can't leave us hanging like that! Tell us more!
Having come back from lunch and a long discussion about Covid Testing with Eldest Granddaughter I found this. So: Briefly I developed sepsis and was rushed into hospital. My condition worsened and I went off into unconsciousness. My wife arrived to visit and found the nurse calling me by my surname to try and make contact. "Don't call him that" said my wife; "he won't respond. Use his first name, look at the notice over the bed." The nurse did what she was told, I responded, and slowly came back to normal.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
It's not a question of telling people they are wrong. It is the "moral" answer precisely because it is the answer that respects people's wish to live how they choose. If you want to respect that choice then you have to accept that some women do indeed have a penis, however wrong that sounds or however uncomfortable that makes us feel. It sounds wrong to me too and makes me feel uncomfortable too, FWIW.
Absolutely - but whether that acceptance has to extend to allowing those people into women's prisons, toilets and sports requires much more discussion surely. We all ahve the right to live our own lives to the degree that does not impinge on the rights and safety of others.
Sure, let's have the discussion. I'd be interested in answers to the question I posed earlier - does anyone think that forcing trans women to use male toilets (or indeed prisons) would result in fewer assaults overall?
The policing of toilets - if there are to be enforced entry criteria - is also something to think about. At present, afaik, there's no requirement to prove either gender or sex. It works on choice, convention and trust.
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
You got a little more positive support than you recall, including from @Northern_Al who wrote: "An absolutely excellent header, Cyclefree. I agree with every word."
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
CHB and Kinabalu today and every time it has come up. Others too. We get repeatedly told that people don't care about it - reminds me very much of the EU stuff prior to the referendum.
I find it an interesting and important issue. I'm also struck by how it's become - uniquely here in the UK - such an incredibly divisive and consuming topic in digital politics. Why is that? The answer, which I don't have, would be illuminating, I think.
But as to here on PB, it's almost invariably posters of a right wing persuasion (or of course Cyclefree, who isn't really right wing but is just her) who bring the subject up. You'll notice most on the left will take a pass and that includes me a lot of the time, although not today by the looks of it.
People care about their gender identity. It’s primal.
But why here in the UK is this debate - about trans people - so especially frantic and passionate?
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
You got a little more positive support than you recall, including from @Northern_Al who wrote: "An absolutely excellent header, Cyclefree. I agree with every word."
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
Boo - appointment delayed.
There is no requirement for mandatory radical surgery. Never has been.
We have a legal route to change gender. What people like you fail to answer is why it should be made easier than it is.
Errors in that report and what Caroline Nokes, its Chair has said. For starters:-
- It claims that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. Wrong: the NHS does not describe it as such. - It says there should be no requirement for a medical diagnosis to get a GRC but then asks for better medical treatment. Well, if it's not a medical issue why does it need medical treatment? If it is, why abandon the need for a medical diagnosis. Just one example of its incoherent thinking. - It wrongly describes what the so-called spousal veto is. It also wrongly says that a spouse's consent is needed to live in your acquired gender. Not so. - It removes the option for a spouse to get a divorce rather than an annulment. Why? - It says that a panel of strangers has to judge your femininity or masculinity before granting a GRC. Not so. - It says that providing documents - eg of name changes etc is "dehumanising" and "cruel". Why? This is asserted by TRAs. Most official documents are obtained by people providing evidence of their identity. In what sense is it therefore dehumanising to ask trans people to do the same?
And so on. It is not a well thought out report. Its principal failing is that it does not explain how the sex-based rights of natal born women are to be preserved if self-ID goes through.
It is a question which is often asked. But never answered. It needs to be.
That's a mix of what you say are factual errors and questions you have and points where you detect incoherence. Fair enough. I can't answer them all here and now. Maybe I can't answer some of them at all. But no way is it a discredited report. It's pretty thorough and makes the case well for the same reforms that several other countries have done, some of them quite a long time ago. AFAIK none are wishing to repeal. Where the reform has been done it's worked out ok, an easier process helping trans people with nobody else hurt. As I say, I support it but with controls in certain areas. Let's see how it works in Scotland.
But my point here is how this so-called commonsense stuff like "women cannot have a penis" or "men cannot have a cervix" is actually, if you follow the logic, a repudiation of long existing trans rights. Because, as you yourself are aware but I think many aren't, the legal route to change gender (which has existed for decades) has never involved mandatory surgery. For those statements to hold (precisely as opposed to casually) it would now need to, or alternatively the right to change gender at all would need to be removed.
Thing is, we get so much thrown one way on this and I just wanted to zap something back in kind. So, you know, let's have Kay Burley & Co badgering Tory politicians with "Why can't you admit that women can have a penis?" and if they won't be clear on it, let's then have constant stories that "the Tories don't recognize trans people and want to erase them!"
I think that's only fair. Or rather it balances out the unfairness a little.
Rishi Sunak was asked on Sunday. Tories do get asked too.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
My main concern is a safety one. Sometimes the data on speed limits is poor and out-of-date. It's not that rare for Google maps to think we're breaking the speed limit, but it has the wrong speed limit in its database (and vice versa).
If the speed limit is x, but the database thinks it is y, then that's potentially quite dangerous.
I'm normally very strict on speed limits, but I've seen too much dodgy data in databases to think it's a good idea to have them dynamically limit the speed of a vehicle.
Comments
Maybe it's more interesting than watching Chelsea?
In unrelated news, it is payday on Thursday.
Legions of tractor drivers waiting patiently. "Moscow? That way, guys....."
https://www.investopedia.com/biden-billionaires-minimum-tax-5223904
It does indeed appear that he is going for advance payment of capital gains tax, on unrealised gains of shareholdings for individuals with net worth over $100m.
As for loos, have gender neutral loos if there is space or make them a subset of male loos. Transwomen retain male bodies. I do not want them attacked but if they are by other men they have a good chance of fighting back because it is a biological male on male fight. Whereas it is not an equal fight between a biological male and a woman.
But the answer is gender neutral loos with closed cubicles in as many places as possible in addition to female only loos.
Seems like a blatant PR misstep? Maybe she doesn’t care anymore
We are already seeing it. John Herdman, Canada manager, never a pro. Steve Holland, England coach, no real pro career. Thomas Frank, Brentford manager, never a pro. Bruno Lage, no real pro career. Ralf Rangnick, limited pro career. Thomas Tuchel, limited pro caeer. etc etc etc
I know historically there has been a bit of an attitude that you only 'understand' football if you have played it, but thats probably slipping a bit now. Jose Mourinho as a trail blazer.
But my point here is how this so-called commonsense stuff like "women cannot have a penis" or "men cannot have a cervix" is actually, if you follow the logic, a repudiation of long existing trans rights. Because, as you yourself are aware but I think many aren't, the legal route to change gender (which has existed for decades) has never involved mandatory surgery. For those statements to hold (precisely as opposed to casually) it would now need to, or alternatively the right to change gender at all would need to be removed.
Thing is, we get so much thrown one way on this and I just wanted to zap something back in kind. So, you know, let's have Kay Burley & Co badgering Tory politicians with "Why can't you admit that women can have a penis?" and if they won't be clear on it, let's then have constant stories that "the Tories don't recognize trans people and want to erase them!"
I think that's only fair. Or rather it balances out the unfairness a little.
FT is reporting the two sides are close to a 1-week ceasefire agreement "to let Oryx take a day off and then clear out his backlog"
"An absolutely excellent header, Cyclefree. I agree with every word."
But as to here on PB, it's almost invariably posters of a right wing persuasion (or of course Cyclefree, who isn't really right wing but is just her) who bring the subject up. You'll notice most on the left will take a pass and that includes me a lot of the time, although not today by the looks of it.
It’s primal.
Briefly I developed sepsis and was rushed into hospital. My condition worsened and I went off into unconsciousness. My wife arrived to visit and found the nurse calling me by my surname to try and make contact. "Don't call him that" said my wife; "he won't respond. Use his first name, look at the notice over the bed."
The nurse did what she was told, I responded, and slowly came back to normal.
This is what I'm wondering.
If the speed limit is x, but the database thinks it is y, then that's potentially quite dangerous.
I'm normally very strict on speed limits, but I've seen too much dodgy data in databases to think it's a good idea to have them dynamically limit the speed of a vehicle.