Presumably those who chipped in will get their money back ?
Guido is right, this was a worthy cause as well.
I don't think so. I think when you contribute to his crowd funding, the small print says that should situation change, they can move the money to other campaigns of their choosing.
What a happy coincidence for them.
Some of their campaigns are worthwhile but some of them really are an excercise in futility.
Just caught the end of PMQs. For all his lawyerly, considered, forensic, incisive, analytical questioning, SKS is boring as fuck.
Lab need a bit of tub-thumping.
SKS could reel off the most important issues on the planet which everyone is affected by and it would seem as though he was reading through the phone book.
BoJo could read through the phone book and it would seem as though he was addressing the critical matters of state.
I couldn't care less whether "Bojo" as you affectionately call him, could read said phone book at 1000 words per minute while riding a unicycle and juggling bottles of nitro-glycerine. The fact remains that other than Corbyn, he is the most unsuitable person ever to have submitted himself to be leader of a serious British political party. His ability to be entertaining is not a necessary characteristic for that post.
Oh but it is. As we have seen. In 2019.
Tories win elections, Bears shit in the woods, what's new, the system and the media are skewed towards that end, but that does not make him a suitable leader of any country, the man is an embarrassment, and it is to the detriment of Tory MPs, that they did not have the spine to finish him off
Oh I agree and have said just that for years. But I have also noted that he is showbiz and at the moment (or at least until recently) the planet seemed to like that style of leadership. Does that mean we will all rush to the sane, sensible, quietly-spoken lawyer type? Not sure. Politics means rousing rabbles as well as being on top of your brief. Both BoJo and SKS score one out of two; I'm not sure that is enough to become our next PM.
A small update from Tallinn. It is bright but a bitter east wind is blowing.
Over 25,000 Ukrainians have come to Tallinn, but although a few are now going on to other places, nevertheless the crisis continues. There are concerns that some of the more Putinist Russian speakers might be "less than welcoming" to Ukrainian refugees, but for the moment the more obnoxious voices are stilled. The May 9th celebration of Soviet victory will not be going ahead in Tallinn, but may yet still take place in Narva, which is a concern to many, but we will see. The pitiful performance of the Russian army does not make even a Putinist heart swell with pride.
Trying to process my recent trip to Poland and the UK. FWIW, the feelings closer to the battlefield are more nuanced than you might think. Although there is respect and gratitude that the UK has provided critical assistance to Ukraine, there is a clear sense that the UK and the Conservative Party in particular were far too close to the Russian mafia state. The large donations to both the Tories and the Leave campaign are generally seen as a successful attempt by the Putinist state to subvert both the country and the party. While it is accepted that Britain has done many good things, in particular the training of Ukrainian troops and the donation of NLAWS are mentioned, this does not let either Britain or Boris off the hook. Indeed there is astonishment and no little anger about the appointment of Lebedev. "No such thing as an ex-KGB" is the general response and the idea that someone so close to the Putinists can be appointed to the UK Parliament is bewildering to most here.
Obviously the news of some Ukrainian gains is most welcome, because there is a growing sense of contempt, not just for Putin, but the Russian people who can put up with the tyrant. A general view is "Build a wall around them and forget them". The blood curdling threats of anhilliation coming from the Kremlin, or more precisely from the Urals bunker, are simply reinforcing a loathing of the man and indeed his country. The national image of Russia is reaching new lows, and it is easy to understand why. They have never apologised for the destruction they wrought during the occupation, they have never asked for forgiveness and at this point, neither Poles, nor Estonians, nor Latvians, nor Lithuanians are in a very forgiving mood. Indeed Estonia has drastically increased the assistance they are giving to Ukraine. Support for Kaja Kallas, the Liberal Prime Minister has rocketed and the general view is that she has done a good job prepresenting Estonia on the world stage.
As Russia continues to burn its bridges to the civilised world, a growing view in Estonia is "Good Riddance". Not sure this is healthy, albeit that it is completely understandable.
A huge split is looming in the EU, between the Baltics, Eastern Europe (ex Hungary), Scandinavia (plus UK on the outside) - who are firmly anti-Putin, and France, Belgium (plus Italy and Germany but to a lesser extent) who are much keener to appease Putin
Zelenskyy made this quite clear in a recent speech. Contemptuous of Macron
Potentially massive issue
It's brought to the surface an underlying split that has been there even before EU enlargement. Jacques Chirac famously told Poland and the Baltic states to be quiet when Tony Blair wanted to bring them in to EU meetings prior to accession.
And all of this even as the EU seeks to punish Poland for its un-democratic blah blah
The Poles will turn around and say Well we’ve taken in 2 million refugees even as Berlin wanted to accept immediate Ukrainian defeat, and Macron was trying to strike a deal with Putin so French firms could continue doing business in Russia
There will be blood and it will be bad. The EU is fundamentally divided on the most important security issue of our time
On the same note I see that the total number of Ukrainian refugees outside Ukraine is now over 4 million. A bewilderingly huge crisis
This is particularly striking coming from someone who hasn’t predicted EU fissure and rupture previously. Any view on how this will also be inevitably disastrous for Scottish Indy?
Your desire for attention is poignant and forlorn
Lol, diagnostician heal thyself.
Indeed, I see a bit of myself in you. Take that as you will
The difference is that you’re a monomaniac. Your only issue is Indy, really. Makes you a commenter of limited interest whenever things stray too far from that subject
By contrast, I have a million views on a billion subjects, often completely contradictory, yet uttered on the same day
On the contrary, I'd say Union Divvie and Stewart Dickson have both shown a lot more range as posters recently than the Indie issue. TUD even forgets to be coldly contemptuous of the rest of us sometimes. It's good.
@Theuniondivvie is quite good on men's hats. I'll give him that. I liked his Galloway story
Tho I may be misremembering it as Galloway. The hat story wasn't THAT good
If the death penalty was reintroduced here I would emigrate.
I am not sure I would emigrate but I would fight it all the way. It is one of the reasons why I think Priti Patel is unfit to be Home Secretary or PM. Her support for the Death Penalty is very disturbing and to my mind symptomatic of her attitude towards state authority in general.
Would you oppose the death penalty for Putin?
Yes.
I would not at all be upset if someone assassinated him and would agree the world would be a better place without him in it but it should not be a matter of state policy to kill people in cold blood.
Killing in war and to prevent further death is another matter. But once someone has been detained, no matter who they are, state sanctioned murder is not something I can support.
I realise this is a personal view that many would not share but I do see a very clear and well defined distinction between the two circumstances. It is why we do not sanction the murder of prisoners captured in battle.
I think that's a very balanced view.
The question comes: if the Nuremberg trials occurred today, against similar crimes, would the death sentence be given out? I guess it should not, and the ICC cannot. But imagine if Hitler had lived: would we keep him in jail forever, a focus for all sorts of people? I guess so, but it seems more of an edge case...
It is interesting how many British and particularly US lawyers were deeply opposed to the Nuremburg trials, not because they didn't think the defendants deserved to die but because it was quite literally rewriting the law based on 'victor's might'. Many eminent US and UK lawyers refused to take part because they thought this sort of retrospective law creation was wrong and even dangerous.
I have sympathy with Churchill's view that leading Nazis should have just been summarily shot, as an act of war.
I have no issue with US GI's summarily executing guards at Dachau, and similar incidents.
What about Soviet troops raping hundreds of thousands if not millions of German women, from 8 to 80?
What is there to say about it? It was horrific, and at the same time, inevitable that people who suffered appallingly at German hands would take cruel revenge when the boot was on the other foot.
Presumably those who chipped in will get their money back ?
Guido is right, this was a worthy cause as well.
I don't think so. I think when you contribute to his crowd funding, the small print says that should situation change, they can move the money to other campaigns of their choosing.
What a happy coincidence for them.
Some of their campaigns are worthwhile but some of them really are an excercise in futility.
How else can one keep themselves in silk kimonos....
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
I am not in any way arguing that Non binary folks should be ostracised, joked about or attacked. I am saying that there need to be agreed sets of rules which all parts of reasonable society - and I would include everyone on here for example in that description - are comfortable with which prevent discrimination for everyone and protect the vulnerable. Just as we have those sorts of rules to govern, for example, male behaviour. That set of rules does not yet exist and their development is being hindered by the reaction of some vocal members of the Trans community who see any restriction or rules as an assault on them personally.
The hospital should not have been able to spend a year denying there was someone capable of raping a woman on the ward because of their Trans-policy . Nor should the prison have been able/forced to admit a sex offender into a women's prison where they were then able to commit further rapes. These are systemic failings which need to be addressed and proper policies put in place.
At the same time it is unfair to say to those born female that they will no longer be competitive in women's sport because we allow those born male and with the associated advantages to take part as female. It makes a mockery of women's sport and one might as will say there is no longer any such thing and just have men and women competing equally. Except of course it won't be equal.
I am not saying that there are any easy answers to these issues but the reaction from the Trans-lobby which shouts down any attempt to discuss or resolve these issues (Heathener on here being a good example of this) means that we are going to see ongoing discord and the usual nasty fringes taking advantages of this.
Some serious confusion here. Most trans people are, by definition, not non-binary - they were born in one gender, identify as the other, and want to live as the other to the highest degree possible. The idea that gender is not binary but exists on a continuum is a problem for them, because if that's the case, why do they need to transition at all? Grouping trans and non-binarys together is common among the activist community, but -insofar as I can tell - utterly unhelpful to most trans people.
Yes apologies I am using the same shorthands as the post to which I am responding. But the same basic arguments as I set out apply. I don't mind whether you are straight, gay, Non-binary or transitioned. All are equally valid lives in my view. But in the same way as I accept there are certain limits on my behaviour as a male based on my ability - but not predisposition - to commit certain crimes, those same limits should apply to any other members of society who have the same abilities. What we are doing at the moment is singling out one group and saying that the rules should not apply to them because of their unique status. We are setting their rights above those of everyone else and in some very extreme and limited cases putting others at risk as a result.
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
White outrage about Will Smith’s slap is rooted in anti-Blackness. It’s inequality in plain sight
So all those on here criticising Will Smith are racist. That's you told.
These people must literally be shaking with anger and rage from the moment they get up to the moment they go to bed, absolutely everything around them is racist and rooted in anti-Blackness.
I am not clicking because I refuse to give them the traffic.
But if what the article is saying is that black people should not be expected to refrain from happy slapping people, that is purely and simply racism. It is like those who say black kids (particularly boys) shouldn't be expected to attain the same educational level as their white counterparts because they're learning 'white' subjects. It's a pernicious culture of low expectations for black people, and it should be called out as such.
If the death penalty was reintroduced here I would emigrate.
I am not sure I would emigrate but I would fight it all the way. It is one of the reasons why I think Priti Patel is unfit to be Home Secretary or PM. Her support for the Death Penalty is very disturbing and to my mind symptomatic of her attitude towards state authority in general.
Would you oppose the death penalty for Putin?
Yes.
I would not at all be upset if someone assassinated him and would agree the world would be a better place without him in it but it should not be a matter of state policy to kill people in cold blood.
Killing in war and to prevent further death is another matter. But once someone has been detained, no matter who they are, state sanctioned murder is not something I can support.
I realise this is a personal view that many would not share but I do see a very clear and well defined distinction between the two circumstances. It is why we do not sanction the murder of prisoners captured in battle.
I think that's a very balanced view.
The question comes: if the Nuremberg trials occurred today, against similar crimes, would the death sentence be given out? I guess it should not, and the ICC cannot. But imagine if Hitler had lived: would we keep him in jail forever, a focus for all sorts of people? I guess so, but it seems more of an edge case...
It is interesting how many British and particularly US lawyers were deeply opposed to the Nuremburg trials, not because they didn't think the defendants deserved to die but because it was quite literally rewriting the law based on 'victor's might'. Many eminent US and UK lawyers refused to take part because they thought this sort of retrospective law creation was wrong and even dangerous.
I have sympathy with Churchill's view that leading Nazis should have just been summarily shot, as an act of war.
I have no issue with US GI's summarily executing guards at Dachau, and similar incidents.
There was a great documentary the name or provenance of which I have no idea. It described how a British Army Captain was present at the liberation of one of the concentration camps. He and his troops set about helping the inmates and also they rounded up the camp guards. One of his soldiers came up to him and said they needed to bring water from a nearby well for the inmates who were badly dehydrated. The captain turned to the former guards and told them to go and help get the water. One refused, at which point the captain without hesitation or comment immediately drew his personal weapon and shot him dead. The rest of the guards went to help get the water.
I've heard more than enough anecdotes from ex-servicemen about the punishments that were meted out to concentration camp guards.
If the death penalty was reintroduced here I would emigrate.
I am not sure I would emigrate but I would fight it all the way. It is one of the reasons why I think Priti Patel is unfit to be Home Secretary or PM. Her support for the Death Penalty is very disturbing and to my mind symptomatic of her attitude towards state authority in general.
Would you oppose the death penalty for Putin?
Yes.
I would not at all be upset if someone assassinated him and would agree the world would be a better place without him in it but it should not be a matter of state policy to kill people in cold blood.
Killing in war and to prevent further death is another matter. But once someone has been detained, no matter who they are, state sanctioned murder is not something I can support.
I realise this is a personal view that many would not share but I do see a very clear and well defined distinction between the two circumstances. It is why we do not sanction the murder of prisoners captured in battle.
I think that's a very balanced view.
The question comes: if the Nuremberg trials occurred today, against similar crimes, would the death sentence be given out? I guess it should not, and the ICC cannot. But imagine if Hitler had lived: would we keep him in jail forever, a focus for all sorts of people? I guess so, but it seems more of an edge case...
It is interesting how many British and particularly US lawyers were deeply opposed to the Nuremburg trials, not because they didn't think the defendants deserved to die but because it was quite literally rewriting the law based on 'victor's might'. Many eminent US and UK lawyers refused to take part because they thought this sort of retrospective law creation was wrong and even dangerous.
I have sympathy with Churchill's view that leading Nazis should have just been summarily shot, as an act of war.
I have no issue with US GI's summarily executing guards at Dachau, and similar incidents.
There was a great documentary the name or provenance of which I have no idea. It described how a British Army Captain was present at the liberation of one of the concentration camps. He and his troops set about helping the inmates and also they rounded up the camp guards. One of his soldiers came up to him and said they needed to bring water from a nearby well for the inmates who were badly dehydrated. The captain turned to the former guards and told them to go and help get the water. One refused, at which point the captain without hesitation or comment immediately drew his personal weapon and shot him dead. The rest of the guards went to help get the water.
A few years back I went to a talk by Eric Winkle Brown. I had expected to hear some great stories about planes, but a lot of his talk was about his experience liberating Bergen-Belsen, and the views he had on the camps' commandants and guards. He could speak German fluently before the war (he had actually been on holiday in Germany when war was declared!), but I got the impression that his view on Germans were changed by Bergen-Belsen.
What if Putin didn't miscalculate ? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html ....The possibility is suggested in a powerful reminiscence from The Times’s Carlotta Gall of her experience covering Russia’s siege of Grozny, during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. In the early phases of the war, motivated Chechen fighters wiped out a Russian armored brigade, stunning Moscow. The Russians regrouped and wiped out Grozny from afar, using artillery and air power.
Russia’s operating from the same playbook today. When Western military analysts argue that Putin can’t win militarily in Ukraine, what they really mean is that he can’t win clean. Since when has Putin ever played clean?...
A small update from Tallinn. It is bright but a bitter east wind is blowing.
Over 25,000 Ukrainians have come to Tallinn, but although a few are now going on to other places, nevertheless the crisis continues. There are concerns that some of the more Putinist Russian speakers might be "less than welcoming" to Ukrainian refugees, but for the moment the more obnoxious voices are stilled. The May 9th celebration of Soviet victory will not be going ahead in Tallinn, but may yet still take place in Narva, which is a concern to many, but we will see. The pitiful performance of the Russian army does not make even a Putinist heart swell with pride.
Trying to process my recent trip to Poland and the UK. FWIW, the feelings closer to the battlefield are more nuanced than you might think. Although there is respect and gratitude that the UK has provided critical assistance to Ukraine, there is a clear sense that the UK and the Conservative Party in particular were far too close to the Russian mafia state. The large donations to both the Tories and the Leave campaign are generally seen as a successful attempt by the Putinist state to subvert both the country and the party. While it is accepted that Britain has done many good things, in particular the training of Ukrainian troops and the donation of NLAWS are mentioned, this does not let either Britain or Boris off the hook. Indeed there is astonishment and no little anger about the appointment of Lebedev. "No such thing as an ex-KGB" is the general response and the idea that someone so close to the Putinists can be appointed to the UK Parliament is bewildering to most here.
Obviously the news of some Ukrainian gains is most welcome, because there is a growing sense of contempt, not just for Putin, but the Russian people who can put up with the tyrant. A general view is "Build a wall around them and forget them". The blood curdling threats of anhilliation coming from the Kremlin, or more precisely from the Urals bunker, are simply reinforcing a loathing of the man and indeed his country. The national image of Russia is reaching new lows, and it is easy to understand why. They have never apologised for the destruction they wrought during the occupation, they have never asked for forgiveness and at this point, neither Poles, nor Estonians, nor Latvians, nor Lithuanians are in a very forgiving mood. Indeed Estonia has drastically increased the assistance they are giving to Ukraine. Support for Kaja Kallas, the Liberal Prime Minister has rocketed and the general view is that she has done a good job prepresenting Estonia on the world stage.
As Russia continues to burn its bridges to the civilised world, a growing view in Estonia is "Good Riddance". Not sure this is healthy, albeit that it is completely understandable.
A huge split is looming in the EU, between the Baltics, Eastern Europe (ex Hungary), Scandinavia (plus UK on the outside) - who are firmly anti-Putin, and France, Belgium (plus Italy and Germany but to a lesser extent) who are much keener to appease Putin
Zelenskyy made this quite clear in a recent speech. Contemptuous of Macron
Potentially massive issue
It's brought to the surface an underlying split that has been there even before EU enlargement. Jacques Chirac famously told Poland and the Baltic states to be quiet when Tony Blair wanted to bring them in to EU meetings prior to accession.
And all of this even as the EU seeks to punish Poland for its un-democratic blah blah
The Poles will turn around and say Well we’ve taken in 2 million refugees even as Berlin wanted to accept immediate Ukrainian defeat, and Macron was trying to strike a deal with Putin so French firms could continue doing business in Russia
There will be blood and it will be bad. The EU is fundamentally divided on the most important security issue of our time
On the same note I see that the total number of Ukrainian refugees outside Ukraine is now over 4 million. A bewilderingly huge crisis
This is particularly striking coming from someone who hasn’t predicted EU fissure and rupture previously. Any view on how this will also be inevitably disastrous for Scottish Indy?
Your desire for attention is poignant and forlorn
Lol, diagnostician heal thyself.
Indeed, I see a bit of myself in you. Take that as you will
The difference is that you’re a monomaniac. Your only issue is Indy, really. Makes you a commenter of limited interest whenever things stray too far from that subject
By contrast, I have a million views on a billion subjects, often completely contradictory, yet uttered on the same day
I can’t be arsed going through my last 100 posts so I’m bloody sure you won’t, but I’ll take a bet that less than 10% of them relate to Indy, and by the same measure I’m pretty sure more than 10% of yours will be prating on about the trans woke culture wars that obsess you. Your trouble is that you’re a serial monomaniac.
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
Straw trans man
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
As far as I can see, no one on this site - which is socially very liberal - wants to deny love and concern for people with gender dysphoria/a desire to transition. Etc. And out of sheer politeness if someone wants to be called Ms Mrs Miss or whatever then who would say No?
The issue is when trans rights start to trample over other rights, such as the right of women to feel safe from rape in hospital wards, prisons, etc. Or when female sports risk becoming dominated by people born male.
These are very real issues - as we can see from recent stories - and people are now getting angry at how this important argument is constantly closed down with aggressive accusations of “transphobia”. It happens on here
The “rape in hospital, trample on other rights” is preciscisly the “reefer madness” you are getting wrong. It makes you come across unwilling to understand and help because all every trans person wants is to rape people in hospitals. Do you see what I mean 🤷♀️
What we can actually do to help is stop the misconception of the “can a women have a penis” question, so that question is never heard ever again. Stop tarring every trans and non binary person with “there was a rape in hospital” on the basis that you don’t actually believe it’s fair or helpful to do that.
Idiotic. Nobody remotely sane is saying that any genuinely trans woman has ever raped anyone, they are saying that loopholes get exploited by fakers. Which they do.
White outrage about Will Smith’s slap is rooted in anti-Blackness. It’s inequality in plain sight
So all those on here criticising Will Smith are racist. That's you told.
These people must literally be shaking with anger and rage from the moment they get up to the moment they go to bed, absolutely everything around them is racist and rooted in anti-Blackness.
I am not clicking because I refuse to give them the traffic.
But if what the article is saying is that black people should not be expected to refrain from happy slapping people, that is purely and simply racism. It is like those who say black kids (particularly boys) shouldn't be expected to attain the same educational level as their white counterparts because they're learning 'white' subjects. It's a pernicious culture of low expectations for black people, and it should be called out as such.
It's arguing that Smith wouldn't be criticised if he were white.
To be fair, if Jeremy Clarkson's assault of Piers Morgan been broadcast live on TV (it was an awards evening, by the way), then I think the reaction might have been a bit different, but I don't think that's entirely about race.
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
I am not in any way arguing that Non binary folks should be ostracised, joked about or attacked. I am saying that there need to be agreed sets of rules which all parts of reasonable society - and I would include everyone on here for example in that description - are comfortable with which prevent discrimination for everyone and protect the vulnerable. Just as we have those sorts of rules to govern, for example, male behaviour. That set of rules does not yet exist and their development is being hindered by the reaction of some vocal members of the Trans community who see any restriction or rules as an assault on them personally.
The hospital should not have been able to spend a year denying there was someone capable of raping a woman on the ward because of their Trans-policy . Nor should the prison have been able/forced to admit a sex offender into a women's prison where they were then able to commit further rapes. These are systemic failings which need to be addressed and proper policies put in place.
At the same time it is unfair to say to those born female that they will no longer be competitive in women's sport because we allow those born male and with the associated advantages to take part as female. It makes a mockery of women's sport and one might as will say there is no longer any such thing and just have men and women competing equally. Except of course it won't be equal.
I am not saying that there are any easy answers to these issues but the reaction from the Trans-lobby which shouts down any attempt to discuss or resolve these issues (Heathener on here being a good example of this) means that we are going to see ongoing discord and the usual nasty fringes taking advantages of this.
Some serious confusion here. Most trans people are, by definition, not non-binary - they were born in one gender, identify as the other, and want to live as the other to the highest degree possible. The idea that gender is not binary but exists on a continuum is a problem for them, because if that's the case, why do they need to transition at all? Grouping trans and non-binarys together is common among the activist community, but -insofar as I can tell - utterly unhelpful to most trans people.
Yes apologies I am using the same shorthands as the post to which I am responding. But the same basic arguments as I set out apply. I don't mind whether you are straight, gay, Non-binary or transitioned. All are equally valid lives in my view. But in the same way as I accept there are certain limits on my behaviour as a male based on my ability - but not predisposition - to commit certain crimes, those same limits should apply to any other members of society who have the same abilities. What we are doing at the moment is singling out one group and saying that the rules should not apply to them because of their unique status. We are setting their rights above those of everyone else and in some very extreme and limited cases putting others at risk as a result.
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
Agreed; I don't think you're the one who is confused.
I have come to the conclusion that Scottish separatism is one massive conspiracy theory.
First, there is the paranoia associated with conspiracy theories, a paranoia that identifies a group as the enemy intent on damaging and even destroying Scotland. This sets up a typical conspiracy theory ‘them and us’ confrontation…… and the ‘traitors’, ‘quislings’, ‘not true Scots’ could ‘go back to England’, even if we have lived for decades in Scotland.
Second, conspiracy theories are based on prejudice. In the case of Scottish nationalism, this accords with a generalised resentment at a larger partner in the UK, England….
Third, conspiracy theories tend to be based on a suspicion of experts, who are able to explode the mythology on which any given conspiracy theory is based…..We see it in Scotland where people with stellar credentials in a field such as finance or economics are dismissed as ‘unionists’, or ‘yoons’, because they show nationalist claims to be false. We see it when nationalists dismiss the professional statisticians who compile the Scottish government’s financial statistical report, GERS….
Belief in a conspiracy theory involves confidence that one is standing on some moral high ground and that one’s adversaries are not.
Scots – by this interpretation are better people, more moral than the English, and in present day terms more ‘progressive’ and ‘social democratic’. The lie can be given to this belief by the way in which high rates of poverty and drug deaths persist in certain areas of Scotland. If Scots had been so moral, progressive and social democratic, would their government not have concentrated resources on the areas scarred by poverty and drug abuse, instead of appeasing the middle classes with a long council tax freeze and various ‘free’ benefits that were already ‘free’ to those in real need?
A small update from Tallinn. It is bright but a bitter east wind is blowing.
Over 25,000 Ukrainians have come to Tallinn, but although a few are now going on to other places, nevertheless the crisis continues. There are concerns that some of the more Putinist Russian speakers might be "less than welcoming" to Ukrainian refugees, but for the moment the more obnoxious voices are stilled. The May 9th celebration of Soviet victory will not be going ahead in Tallinn, but may yet still take place in Narva, which is a concern to many, but we will see. The pitiful performance of the Russian army does not make even a Putinist heart swell with pride.
Trying to process my recent trip to Poland and the UK. FWIW, the feelings closer to the battlefield are more nuanced than you might think. Although there is respect and gratitude that the UK has provided critical assistance to Ukraine, there is a clear sense that the UK and the Conservative Party in particular were far too close to the Russian mafia state. The large donations to both the Tories and the Leave campaign are generally seen as a successful attempt by the Putinist state to subvert both the country and the party. While it is accepted that Britain has done many good things, in particular the training of Ukrainian troops and the donation of NLAWS are mentioned, this does not let either Britain or Boris off the hook. Indeed there is astonishment and no little anger about the appointment of Lebedev. "No such thing as an ex-KGB" is the general response and the idea that someone so close to the Putinists can be appointed to the UK Parliament is bewildering to most here.
Obviously the news of some Ukrainian gains is most welcome, because there is a growing sense of contempt, not just for Putin, but the Russian people who can put up with the tyrant. A general view is "Build a wall around them and forget them". The blood curdling threats of anhilliation coming from the Kremlin, or more precisely from the Urals bunker, are simply reinforcing a loathing of the man and indeed his country. The national image of Russia is reaching new lows, and it is easy to understand why. They have never apologised for the destruction they wrought during the occupation, they have never asked for forgiveness and at this point, neither Poles, nor Estonians, nor Latvians, nor Lithuanians are in a very forgiving mood. Indeed Estonia has drastically increased the assistance they are giving to Ukraine. Support for Kaja Kallas, the Liberal Prime Minister has rocketed and the general view is that she has done a good job prepresenting Estonia on the world stage.
As Russia continues to burn its bridges to the civilised world, a growing view in Estonia is "Good Riddance". Not sure this is healthy, albeit that it is completely understandable.
A huge split is looming in the EU, between the Baltics, Eastern Europe (ex Hungary), Scandinavia (plus UK on the outside) - who are firmly anti-Putin, and France, Belgium (plus Italy and Germany but to a lesser extent) who are much keener to appease Putin
Zelenskyy made this quite clear in a recent speech. Contemptuous of Macron
Potentially massive issue
It's brought to the surface an underlying split that has been there even before EU enlargement. Jacques Chirac famously told Poland and the Baltic states to be quiet when Tony Blair wanted to bring them in to EU meetings prior to accession.
And all of this even as the EU seeks to punish Poland for its un-democratic blah blah
The Poles will turn around and say Well we’ve taken in 2 million refugees even as Berlin wanted to accept immediate Ukrainian defeat, and Macron was trying to strike a deal with Putin so French firms could continue doing business in Russia
There will be blood and it will be bad. The EU is fundamentally divided on the most important security issue of our time
On the same note I see that the total number of Ukrainian refugees outside Ukraine is now over 4 million. A bewilderingly huge crisis
This is particularly striking coming from someone who hasn’t predicted EU fissure and rupture previously. Any view on how this will also be inevitably disastrous for Scottish Indy?
Your desire for attention is poignant and forlorn
Lol, diagnostician heal thyself.
Indeed, I see a bit of myself in you. Take that as you will
The difference is that you’re a monomaniac. Your only issue is Indy, really. Makes you a commenter of limited interest whenever things stray too far from that subject
By contrast, I have a million views on a billion subjects, often completely contradictory, yet uttered on the same day
On the contrary, I'd say Union Divvie and Stewart Dickson have both shown a lot more range as posters recently than the Indie issue. TUD even forgets to be coldly contemptuous of the rest of us sometimes. It's good.
@Theuniondivvie is quite good on men's hats. I'll give him that. I liked his Galloway story
Tho I may be misremembering it as Galloway. The hat story wasn't THAT good
Boots also, don't forget the boots. He's all over that.
It does seem astonishing to me that NUS have not coordinated, campaigned and won a hefty rebate on student fees during COVID (2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-22 academic years)
They basically have an open and shut case -- lack of face-to-face teaching, reduced contact hours, cancellation of field trips, laboratory classes, science practicals, examples classes & tutorials, lack of access to facilities and resources, cancellation of events associated with teaching & research such as exhibitions, end of year shows, presentations.
Some science undergraduates I know who started in 2019 will actually complete their science degree without any experimental classes whatsoever. The quality of education, and their consequent employability, has been hugely affected.
This should have been a dead-easy fight for the NUS to have won ...
With the situation as it is now, has anyone changed their mind about nuclear power, and Hinkley Point in particular?
Hinkley Point has a strike price of £92.50 per megawatt-hour. And the current price appears to be much higher than that. What is more, nuclear offers us reasonable independence and security as part of a diverse energy supply.
I believe that it is only a minimum. If the price is below £92.50/MWh, HM treasury tops them up. Regardless of where the price is they charge the market rate.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
It does seem astonishing to me that NUS have not coordinated, campaigned and won a hefty rebate on student fees during COVID (2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-22 academic years)
They basically have an open and shut case -- lack of face-to-face teaching, reduced contact hours, cancellation of field trips, laboratory classes, science practicals, examples classes & tutorials, lack of access to facilities and resources, cancellation of events associated with teaching & research such as exhibitions, end of year shows, presentations.
Some science undergraduates I know who started in 2019 will actually complete their science degree without any experimental classes whatsoever. The quality of education, and their consequent employability, has been hugely affected.
This should have been a dead-easy fight for the NUS to have won ...
It appears they are too busy fighting other battles and being anti-Semitic to you know actually represent students.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
A small update from Tallinn. It is bright but a bitter east wind is blowing.
Over 25,000 Ukrainians have come to Tallinn, but although a few are now going on to other places, nevertheless the crisis continues. There are concerns that some of the more Putinist Russian speakers might be "less than welcoming" to Ukrainian refugees, but for the moment the more obnoxious voices are stilled. The May 9th celebration of Soviet victory will not be going ahead in Tallinn, but may yet still take place in Narva, which is a concern to many, but we will see. The pitiful performance of the Russian army does not make even a Putinist heart swell with pride.
Trying to process my recent trip to Poland and the UK. FWIW, the feelings closer to the battlefield are more nuanced than you might think. Although there is respect and gratitude that the UK has provided critical assistance to Ukraine, there is a clear sense that the UK and the Conservative Party in particular were far too close to the Russian mafia state. The large donations to both the Tories and the Leave campaign are generally seen as a successful attempt by the Putinist state to subvert both the country and the party. While it is accepted that Britain has done many good things, in particular the training of Ukrainian troops and the donation of NLAWS are mentioned, this does not let either Britain or Boris off the hook. Indeed there is astonishment and no little anger about the appointment of Lebedev. "No such thing as an ex-KGB" is the general response and the idea that someone so close to the Putinists can be appointed to the UK Parliament is bewildering to most here.
Obviously the news of some Ukrainian gains is most welcome, because there is a growing sense of contempt, not just for Putin, but the Russian people who can put up with the tyrant. A general view is "Build a wall around them and forget them". The blood curdling threats of anhilliation coming from the Kremlin, or more precisely from the Urals bunker, are simply reinforcing a loathing of the man and indeed his country. The national image of Russia is reaching new lows, and it is easy to understand why. They have never apologised for the destruction they wrought during the occupation, they have never asked for forgiveness and at this point, neither Poles, nor Estonians, nor Latvians, nor Lithuanians are in a very forgiving mood. Indeed Estonia has drastically increased the assistance they are giving to Ukraine. Support for Kaja Kallas, the Liberal Prime Minister has rocketed and the general view is that she has done a good job prepresenting Estonia on the world stage.
As Russia continues to burn its bridges to the civilised world, a growing view in Estonia is "Good Riddance". Not sure this is healthy, albeit that it is completely understandable.
A huge split is looming in the EU, between the Baltics, Eastern Europe (ex Hungary), Scandinavia (plus UK on the outside) - who are firmly anti-Putin, and France, Belgium (plus Italy and Germany but to a lesser extent) who are much keener to appease Putin
Zelenskyy made this quite clear in a recent speech. Contemptuous of Macron
Potentially massive issue
It's brought to the surface an underlying split that has been there even before EU enlargement. Jacques Chirac famously told Poland and the Baltic states to be quiet when Tony Blair wanted to bring them in to EU meetings prior to accession.
And all of this even as the EU seeks to punish Poland for its un-democratic blah blah
The Poles will turn around and say Well we’ve taken in 2 million refugees even as Berlin wanted to accept immediate Ukrainian defeat, and Macron was trying to strike a deal with Putin so French firms could continue doing business in Russia
There will be blood and it will be bad. The EU is fundamentally divided on the most important security issue of our time
On the same note I see that the total number of Ukrainian refugees outside Ukraine is now over 4 million. A bewilderingly huge crisis
This is particularly striking coming from someone who hasn’t predicted EU fissure and rupture previously. Any view on how this will also be inevitably disastrous for Scottish Indy?
Your desire for attention is poignant and forlorn
Lol, diagnostician heal thyself.
Indeed, I see a bit of myself in you. Take that as you will
The difference is that you’re a monomaniac. Your only issue is Indy, really. Makes you a commenter of limited interest whenever things stray too far from that subject
By contrast, I have a million views on a billion subjects, often completely contradictory, yet uttered on the same day
On the contrary, I'd say Union Divvie and Stewart Dickson have both shown a lot more range as posters recently than the Indie issue. TUD even forgets to be coldly contemptuous of the rest of us sometimes. It's good.
@Theuniondivvie is quite good on men's hats. I'll give him that. I liked his Galloway story
Tho I may be misremembering it as Galloway. The hat story wasn't THAT good
It was Jerry Sadowitz you swine, a moral and cultural giant compared to Galloway, and the best thing about the story.
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
Oh, I don't know that that means much. PBers can be found to argue about anything, and to push almost every view.
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
I'm waiting for Mr Hebblethwaite to be prosecuted and sent to jail as everyone on here was assuring me would happen not so long ago.
A small update from Tallinn. It is bright but a bitter east wind is blowing.
Over 25,000 Ukrainians have come to Tallinn, but although a few are now going on to other places, nevertheless the crisis continues. There are concerns that some of the more Putinist Russian speakers might be "less than welcoming" to Ukrainian refugees, but for the moment the more obnoxious voices are stilled. The May 9th celebration of Soviet victory will not be going ahead in Tallinn, but may yet still take place in Narva, which is a concern to many, but we will see. The pitiful performance of the Russian army does not make even a Putinist heart swell with pride.
Trying to process my recent trip to Poland and the UK. FWIW, the feelings closer to the battlefield are more nuanced than you might think. Although there is respect and gratitude that the UK has provided critical assistance to Ukraine, there is a clear sense that the UK and the Conservative Party in particular were far too close to the Russian mafia state. The large donations to both the Tories and the Leave campaign are generally seen as a successful attempt by the Putinist state to subvert both the country and the party. While it is accepted that Britain has done many good things, in particular the training of Ukrainian troops and the donation of NLAWS are mentioned, this does not let either Britain or Boris off the hook. Indeed there is astonishment and no little anger about the appointment of Lebedev. "No such thing as an ex-KGB" is the general response and the idea that someone so close to the Putinists can be appointed to the UK Parliament is bewildering to most here.
Obviously the news of some Ukrainian gains is most welcome, because there is a growing sense of contempt, not just for Putin, but the Russian people who can put up with the tyrant. A general view is "Build a wall around them and forget them". The blood curdling threats of anhilliation coming from the Kremlin, or more precisely from the Urals bunker, are simply reinforcing a loathing of the man and indeed his country. The national image of Russia is reaching new lows, and it is easy to understand why. They have never apologised for the destruction they wrought during the occupation, they have never asked for forgiveness and at this point, neither Poles, nor Estonians, nor Latvians, nor Lithuanians are in a very forgiving mood. Indeed Estonia has drastically increased the assistance they are giving to Ukraine. Support for Kaja Kallas, the Liberal Prime Minister has rocketed and the general view is that she has done a good job prepresenting Estonia on the world stage.
As Russia continues to burn its bridges to the civilised world, a growing view in Estonia is "Good Riddance". Not sure this is healthy, albeit that it is completely understandable.
A huge split is looming in the EU, between the Baltics, Eastern Europe (ex Hungary), Scandinavia (plus UK on the outside) - who are firmly anti-Putin, and France, Belgium (plus Italy and Germany but to a lesser extent) who are much keener to appease Putin
Zelenskyy made this quite clear in a recent speech. Contemptuous of Macron
Potentially massive issue
It's brought to the surface an underlying split that has been there even before EU enlargement. Jacques Chirac famously told Poland and the Baltic states to be quiet when Tony Blair wanted to bring them in to EU meetings prior to accession.
And all of this even as the EU seeks to punish Poland for its un-democratic blah blah
The Poles will turn around and say Well we’ve taken in 2 million refugees even as Berlin wanted to accept immediate Ukrainian defeat, and Macron was trying to strike a deal with Putin so French firms could continue doing business in Russia
There will be blood and it will be bad. The EU is fundamentally divided on the most important security issue of our time
On the same note I see that the total number of Ukrainian refugees outside Ukraine is now over 4 million. A bewilderingly huge crisis
This is particularly striking coming from someone who hasn’t predicted EU fissure and rupture previously. Any view on how this will also be inevitably disastrous for Scottish Indy?
Your desire for attention is poignant and forlorn
Lol, diagnostician heal thyself.
Indeed, I see a bit of myself in you. Take that as you will
The difference is that you’re a monomaniac. Your only issue is Indy, really. Makes you a commenter of limited interest whenever things stray too far from that subject
By contrast, I have a million views on a billion subjects, often completely contradictory, yet uttered on the same day
On the contrary, I'd say Union Divvie and Stewart Dickson have both shown a lot more range as posters recently than the Indie issue. TUD even forgets to be coldly contemptuous of the rest of us sometimes. It's good.
@Theuniondivvie is quite good on men's hats. I'll give him that. I liked his Galloway story
Tho I may be misremembering it as Galloway. The hat story wasn't THAT good
It was Jerry Sadowitz you swine, a moral and cultural giant compared to Galloway, and the best thing about the story.
Fair enough, it was a good story. And Sadowitz is indeed a mensch
So because some gay men are paedophiles, what rules are we proposing to protect everyone from the tiny minority of them?
Perhaps it's that some people are paedophiles and we should be improving the law to protect people from them, regardless of whether they're gay, trans or whatever else.
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
I am not in any way arguing that Non binary folks should be ostracised, joked about or attacked. I am saying that there need to be agreed sets of rules which all parts of reasonable society - and I would include everyone on here for example in that description - are comfortable with which prevent discrimination for everyone and protect the vulnerable. Just as we have those sorts of rules to govern, for example, male behaviour. That set of rules does not yet exist and their development is being hindered by the reaction of some vocal members of the Trans community who see any restriction or rules as an assault on them personally.
The hospital should not have been able to spend a year denying there was someone capable of raping a woman on the ward because of their Trans-policy . Nor should the prison have been able/forced to admit a sex offender into a women's prison where they were then able to commit further rapes. These are systemic failings which need to be addressed and proper policies put in place.
At the same time it is unfair to say to those born female that they will no longer be competitive in women's sport because we allow those born male and with the associated advantages to take part as female. It makes a mockery of women's sport and one might as will say there is no longer any such thing and just have men and women competing equally. Except of course it won't be equal.
I am not saying that there are any easy answers to these issues but the reaction from the Trans-lobby which shouts down any attempt to discuss or resolve these issues (Heathener on here being a good example of this) means that we are going to see ongoing discord and the usual nasty fringes taking advantages of this.
Some serious confusion here. Most trans people are, by definition, not non-binary - they were born in one gender, identify as the other, and want to live as the other to the highest degree possible. The idea that gender is not binary but exists on a continuum is a problem for them, because if that's the case, why do they need to transition at all? Grouping trans and non-binarys together is common among the activist community, but -insofar as I can tell - utterly unhelpful to most trans people.
Yes apologies I am using the same shorthands as the post to which I am responding. But the same basic arguments as I set out apply. I don't mind whether you are straight, gay, Non-binary or transitioned. All are equally valid lives in my view. But in the same way as I accept there are certain limits on my behaviour as a male based on my ability - but not predisposition - to commit certain crimes, those same limits should apply to any other members of society who have the same abilities. What we are doing at the moment is singling out one group and saying that the rules should not apply to them because of their unique status. We are setting their rights above those of everyone else and in some very extreme and limited cases putting others at risk as a result.
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
On your last paragraph, a mature Parliament could perhaps resolve this issue on a cross-party basis, perhaps through a Select Committee making recommendations on the law and accompanying guidance on practicalities.
Despite all the heat, I don't think a consensus view is very far away, and if both major parties could stop using it as a political football (particularly the Tories, I'm afraid), then I don't see why a solution could not be reached. Having reached such a common view, the extremists on both sides (transphobes vs. trans radicals) could safely be ignored.
So because some gay men are paedophiles, what rules are we proposing to protect everyone from the tiny minority of them?
Perhaps it's that some people are paedophiles and we should be improving the law to protect people from them, regardless of whether they're gay, trans or whatever else.
We don't pretend that rape is not rape if it's carried out by a gay man. That's the issue with the hospital which denied that a person who identified as a woman, and possessed male genitalia, could commit rape.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
So because some gay men are paedophiles, what rules are we proposing to protect everyone from the tiny minority of them?
Perhaps it's that some people are paedophiles and we should be improving the law to protect people from them, regardless of whether they're gay, trans or whatever else.
Or indeed wherever they are. Some people are making it sound like there is a special trans women's rape facility at prisons, hospitals, etc.
So because some gay men are paedophiles, what rules are we proposing to protect everyone from the tiny minority of them?
Perhaps it's that some people are paedophiles and we should be improving the law to protect people from them, regardless of whether they're gay, trans or whatever else.
Or indeed wherever they are. Some people are making it sound like there is a special trans women's rape facility at prisons, hospitals, etc.
Edit: to take account of @Sean_F's point - I hadn't realised they had denied there had been rape.
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
I'm not remotely interested in pizzas or Die Hard, but I keep reading about them on here.
I have come to the conclusion that Scottish separatism is one massive conspiracy theory.
First, there is the paranoia associated with conspiracy theories, a paranoia that identifies a group as the enemy intent on damaging and even destroying Scotland. This sets up a typical conspiracy theory ‘them and us’ confrontation…… and the ‘traitors’, ‘quislings’, ‘not true Scots’ could ‘go back to England’, even if we have lived for decades in Scotland.
Second, conspiracy theories are based on prejudice. In the case of Scottish nationalism, this accords with a generalised resentment at a larger partner in the UK, England….
Third, conspiracy theories tend to be based on a suspicion of experts, who are able to explode the mythology on which any given conspiracy theory is based…..We see it in Scotland where people with stellar credentials in a field such as finance or economics are dismissed as ‘unionists’, or ‘yoons’, because they show nationalist claims to be false. We see it when nationalists dismiss the professional statisticians who compile the Scottish government’s financial statistical report, GERS….
Belief in a conspiracy theory involves confidence that one is standing on some moral high ground and that one’s adversaries are not.
Scots – by this interpretation are better people, more moral than the English, and in present day terms more ‘progressive’ and ‘social democratic’. The lie can be given to this belief by the way in which high rates of poverty and drug deaths persist in certain areas of Scotland. If Scots had been so moral, progressive and social democratic, would their government not have concentrated resources on the areas scarred by poverty and drug abuse, instead of appeasing the middle classes with a long council tax freeze and various ‘free’ benefits that were already ‘free’ to those in real need?
I am a Unionist through and through but that is ridiculous. The view that Scotland may do better as a nation looking out for its own interests rather than being a small and sometimes ignored part of a larger unit is not one I share but it is not a conspiracy theory to espouse it.
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
I am not in any way arguing that Non binary folks should be ostracised, joked about or attacked. I am saying that there need to be agreed sets of rules which all parts of reasonable society - and I would include everyone on here for example in that description - are comfortable with which prevent discrimination for everyone and protect the vulnerable. Just as we have those sorts of rules to govern, for example, male behaviour. That set of rules does not yet exist and their development is being hindered by the reaction of some vocal members of the Trans community who see any restriction or rules as an assault on them personally.
The hospital should not have been able to spend a year denying there was someone capable of raping a woman on the ward because of their Trans-policy . Nor should the prison have been able/forced to admit a sex offender into a women's prison where they were then able to commit further rapes. These are systemic failings which need to be addressed and proper policies put in place.
At the same time it is unfair to say to those born female that they will no longer be competitive in women's sport because we allow those born male and with the associated advantages to take part as female. It makes a mockery of women's sport and one might as will say there is no longer any such thing and just have men and women competing equally. Except of course it won't be equal.
I am not saying that there are any easy answers to these issues but the reaction from the Trans-lobby which shouts down any attempt to discuss or resolve these issues (Heathener on here being a good example of this) means that we are going to see ongoing discord and the usual nasty fringes taking advantages of this.
Some serious confusion here. Most trans people are, by definition, not non-binary - they were born in one gender, identify as the other, and want to live as the other to the highest degree possible. The idea that gender is not binary but exists on a continuum is a problem for them, because if that's the case, why do they need to transition at all? Grouping trans and non-binarys together is common among the activist community, but -insofar as I can tell - utterly unhelpful to most trans people.
Yes apologies I am using the same shorthands as the post to which I am responding. But the same basic arguments as I set out apply. I don't mind whether you are straight, gay, Non-binary or transitioned. All are equally valid lives in my view. But in the same way as I accept there are certain limits on my behaviour as a male based on my ability - but not predisposition - to commit certain crimes, those same limits should apply to any other members of society who have the same abilities. What we are doing at the moment is singling out one group and saying that the rules should not apply to them because of their unique status. We are setting their rights above those of everyone else and in some very extreme and limited cases putting others at risk as a result.
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
On your last paragraph, a mature Parliament could perhaps resolve this issue on a cross-party basis, perhaps through a Select Committee making recommendations on the law and accompanying guidance on practicalities.
Despite all the heat, I don't think a consensus view is very far away, and if both major parties could stop using it as a political football (particularly the Tories, I'm afraid), then I don't see why a solution could not be reached. Having reached such a common view, the extremists on both sides (transphobes vs. trans radicals) could safely be ignored.
You completely misunderstand the situation. Hopeless. There is no common ground because the TRAs are super aggressive and take no prisoners. It really is a culture WAR
Hence the absurd statements from Starmer, Rayner, et al. They are scared of their own militant activists
So because some gay men are paedophiles, what rules are we proposing to protect everyone from the tiny minority of them?
Perhaps it's that some people are paedophiles and we should be improving the law to protect people from them, regardless of whether they're gay, trans or whatever else.
Or indeed wherever they are. Some people are making it sound like there is a special trans women's rape facility at prisons, hospitals, etc.
Edit: to take account of @Sean_F's point - I hadn't realised they had denied there had been rape.
For a year. Despite it being caught on CCTV. Indeed they only admitted it in the end BECAUSE of the CCTV evidence
So because some gay men are paedophiles, what rules are we proposing to protect everyone from the tiny minority of them?
Perhaps it's that some people are paedophiles and we should be improving the law to protect people from them, regardless of whether they're gay, trans or whatever else.
Or indeed wherever they are. Some people are making it sound like there is a special trans women's rape facility at prisons, hospitals, etc.
Straw man. They are just saying, it provably happens, and is provably denied by liars who think they are obliged to lie by the Rules About Trans People. So if women get raped, but not very many of them, is that just a regrettable eggs/omelettes situation?
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
I'm waiting for Mr Hebblethwaite to be prosecuted and sent to jail as everyone on here was assuring me would happen not so long ago.
"Peter Hebblethwaite was a British Jesuit priest and writer. After leaving the priesthood, he became an editor, journalist and biographer. Wikipedia"
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
I am not in any way arguing that Non binary folks should be ostracised, joked about or attacked. I am saying that there need to be agreed sets of rules which all parts of reasonable society - and I would include everyone on here for example in that description - are comfortable with which prevent discrimination for everyone and protect the vulnerable. Just as we have those sorts of rules to govern, for example, male behaviour. That set of rules does not yet exist and their development is being hindered by the reaction of some vocal members of the Trans community who see any restriction or rules as an assault on them personally.
The hospital should not have been able to spend a year denying there was someone capable of raping a woman on the ward because of their Trans-policy . Nor should the prison have been able/forced to admit a sex offender into a women's prison where they were then able to commit further rapes. These are systemic failings which need to be addressed and proper policies put in place.
At the same time it is unfair to say to those born female that they will no longer be competitive in women's sport because we allow those born male and with the associated advantages to take part as female. It makes a mockery of women's sport and one might as will say there is no longer any such thing and just have men and women competing equally. Except of course it won't be equal.
I am not saying that there are any easy answers to these issues but the reaction from the Trans-lobby which shouts down any attempt to discuss or resolve these issues (Heathener on here being a good example of this) means that we are going to see ongoing discord and the usual nasty fringes taking advantages of this.
Some serious confusion here. Most trans people are, by definition, not non-binary - they were born in one gender, identify as the other, and want to live as the other to the highest degree possible. The idea that gender is not binary but exists on a continuum is a problem for them, because if that's the case, why do they need to transition at all? Grouping trans and non-binarys together is common among the activist community, but -insofar as I can tell - utterly unhelpful to most trans people.
Yes apologies I am using the same shorthands as the post to which I am responding. But the same basic arguments as I set out apply. I don't mind whether you are straight, gay, Non-binary or transitioned. All are equally valid lives in my view. But in the same way as I accept there are certain limits on my behaviour as a male based on my ability - but not predisposition - to commit certain crimes, those same limits should apply to any other members of society who have the same abilities. What we are doing at the moment is singling out one group and saying that the rules should not apply to them because of their unique status. We are setting their rights above those of everyone else and in some very extreme and limited cases putting others at risk as a result.
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
On your last paragraph, a mature Parliament could perhaps resolve this issue on a cross-party basis, perhaps through a Select Committee making recommendations on the law and accompanying guidance on practicalities.
Despite all the heat, I don't think a consensus view is very far away, and if both major parties could stop using it as a political football (particularly the Tories, I'm afraid), then I don't see why a solution could not be reached. Having reached such a common view, the extremists on both sides (transphobes vs. trans radicals) could safely be ignored.
You completely misunderstand the situation. Hopeless. There is no common ground because the TRAs are super aggressive and take no prisoners. It really is a culture WAR
Hence the absurd statements from Starmer, Rayner, et al. They are scared of their own militant activists
Thanks for confirming that you're one of the extremists we could safely ignore if my suggestion came to pass.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
What's your view on Bridges competing.
She definitely should. If there is a problem with her destroying the field then the UCI can dial down the permitted testosterone level until it's less than JRM's.
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
I am not in any way arguing that Non binary folks should be ostracised, joked about or attacked. I am saying that there need to be agreed sets of rules which all parts of reasonable society - and I would include everyone on here for example in that description - are comfortable with which prevent discrimination for everyone and protect the vulnerable. Just as we have those sorts of rules to govern, for example, male behaviour. That set of rules does not yet exist and their development is being hindered by the reaction of some vocal members of the Trans community who see any restriction or rules as an assault on them personally.
The hospital should not have been able to spend a year denying there was someone capable of raping a woman on the ward because of their Trans-policy . Nor should the prison have been able/forced to admit a sex offender into a women's prison where they were then able to commit further rapes. These are systemic failings which need to be addressed and proper policies put in place.
At the same time it is unfair to say to those born female that they will no longer be competitive in women's sport because we allow those born male and with the associated advantages to take part as female. It makes a mockery of women's sport and one might as will say there is no longer any such thing and just have men and women competing equally. Except of course it won't be equal.
I am not saying that there are any easy answers to these issues but the reaction from the Trans-lobby which shouts down any attempt to discuss or resolve these issues (Heathener on here being a good example of this) means that we are going to see ongoing discord and the usual nasty fringes taking advantages of this.
Some serious confusion here. Most trans people are, by definition, not non-binary - they were born in one gender, identify as the other, and want to live as the other to the highest degree possible. The idea that gender is not binary but exists on a continuum is a problem for them, because if that's the case, why do they need to transition at all? Grouping trans and non-binarys together is common among the activist community, but -insofar as I can tell - utterly unhelpful to most trans people.
Yes apologies I am using the same shorthands as the post to which I am responding. But the same basic arguments as I set out apply. I don't mind whether you are straight, gay, Non-binary or transitioned. All are equally valid lives in my view. But in the same way as I accept there are certain limits on my behaviour as a male based on my ability - but not predisposition - to commit certain crimes, those same limits should apply to any other members of society who have the same abilities. What we are doing at the moment is singling out one group and saying that the rules should not apply to them because of their unique status. We are setting their rights above those of everyone else and in some very extreme and limited cases putting others at risk as a result.
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
On your last paragraph, a mature Parliament could perhaps resolve this issue on a cross-party basis, perhaps through a Select Committee making recommendations on the law and accompanying guidance on practicalities.
Despite all the heat, I don't think a consensus view is very far away, and if both major parties could stop using it as a political football (particularly the Tories, I'm afraid), then I don't see why a solution could not be reached. Having reached such a common view, the extremists on both sides (transphobes vs. trans radicals) could safely be ignored.
You completely misunderstand the situation. Hopeless. There is no common ground because the TRAs are super aggressive and take no prisoners. It really is a culture WAR
Hence the absurd statements from Starmer, Rayner, et al. They are scared of their own militant activists
Thanks for confirming that you're one of the extremists we could safely ignore if my suggestion came to pass.
I've stated my position. I agree with my best friend Julia, who was once Julian. See below for that opinion
If you're going to label me - notably socially liberal - as an "extremist", then we might as well all give up
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
I'm not remotely interested in pizzas or Die Hard, but I keep reading about them on here.
You don't care about pineapple on pizza! Or Xmas movies! Bejeesus!
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
Oh, I don't know that that means much. PBers can be found to argue about anything, and to push almost every view.
Indeed, that's its attraction. If we all agreed on everything, or all kept on topic, the discussions would go nowhere.
BBC actually have had to issue a statement in defence of their journalists covering the ferry scandal, which has implicated Sturgeon. There has been a massive pile-on from Cyber-Nats. You folk south of the border have little idea of what it's like up here if you challenge the Natocracy.
It does seem astonishing to me that NUS have not coordinated, campaigned and won a hefty rebate on student fees during COVID (2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-22 academic years)
They basically have an open and shut case -- lack of face-to-face teaching, reduced contact hours, cancellation of field trips, laboratory classes, science practicals, examples classes & tutorials, lack of access to facilities and resources, cancellation of events associated with teaching & research such as exhibitions, end of year shows, presentations.
Some science undergraduates I know who started in 2019 will actually complete their science degree without any experimental classes whatsoever. The quality of education, and their consequent employability, has been hugely affected.
This should have been a dead-easy fight for the NUS to have won ...
It appears they are too busy fighting other battles and being anti-Semitic to you know actually represent students.
It was the same a quarter of a century ago, when the NUS exec supported Blair introducing tuition fees in the first place.
I have come to the conclusion that Scottish separatism is one massive conspiracy theory.
First, there is the paranoia associated with conspiracy theories, a paranoia that identifies a group as the enemy intent on damaging and even destroying Scotland. This sets up a typical conspiracy theory ‘them and us’ confrontation…… and the ‘traitors’, ‘quislings’, ‘not true Scots’ could ‘go back to England’, even if we have lived for decades in Scotland.
Second, conspiracy theories are based on prejudice. In the case of Scottish nationalism, this accords with a generalised resentment at a larger partner in the UK, England….
Third, conspiracy theories tend to be based on a suspicion of experts, who are able to explode the mythology on which any given conspiracy theory is based…..We see it in Scotland where people with stellar credentials in a field such as finance or economics are dismissed as ‘unionists’, or ‘yoons’, because they show nationalist claims to be false. We see it when nationalists dismiss the professional statisticians who compile the Scottish government’s financial statistical report, GERS….
Belief in a conspiracy theory involves confidence that one is standing on some moral high ground and that one’s adversaries are not.
Scots – by this interpretation are better people, more moral than the English, and in present day terms more ‘progressive’ and ‘social democratic’. The lie can be given to this belief by the way in which high rates of poverty and drug deaths persist in certain areas of Scotland. If Scots had been so moral, progressive and social democratic, would their government not have concentrated resources on the areas scarred by poverty and drug abuse, instead of appeasing the middle classes with a long council tax freeze and various ‘free’ benefits that were already ‘free’ to those in real need?
I am a Unionist through and through but that is ridiculous. The view that Scotland may do better as a nation looking out for its own interests rather than being a small and sometimes ignored part of a larger unit is not one I share but it is not a conspiracy theory to espouse it.
I think you missed the point. The author does not argue that there is not a case to be made for Scotland to be independent - but that nationalists do not make it. How often do we see examples typical of a conspiracy theory cited above? From GERS denial to Yoons in the pay if England.
While there is a respectable case to be made for Scotland being independent it’s not one being made by the nationalists who hide behind demonisation and facile slogans.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
There is another potentially huge issue in US college sports - the value of scholarships, and the rules governing gender equality in terms of financing offered for them - means there are a huge number of second string male high school athletes who can easily get access to top universities, for free, if they just claim to identify as female.
The incentives are colossal, the drawbacks are pretty minimal, and they're all underage (at least when they apply), so can't even be reasonably asked to take testosterone reducing supplements. If not actively prevented from doing so, this is going to completely destroy US women's college sports inside a decade or so.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
As this toxic debate has deepened, I've noticed more hard science emerging on the actual physical differences between men and women. And they are enormous, in certain areas
For instance, the average 80 year old man has a stronger grip than the average 20 year old woman
1. Grip strength, an index of upper body strength, is highly sexually dimorphic: 90% of men are stronger than 90% of women. Could this help explain sex differences in emotional responses to adversity? A 🧵on a study lead by grad student @_carolinebsmith
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
What's your view on Bridges competing.
She definitely should. If there is a problem with her destroying the field then the UCI can dial down the permitted testosterone level until it's less than JRM's.
I am pretty sure men have denser bones, stronger muscles, and lower body fat percentages - advantages beyond our current testosterone reading.
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
Oh, I don't know that that means much. PBers can be found to argue about anything, and to push almost every view.
Indeed, that's its attraction. If we all agreed on everything, or all kept on topic, the discussions would go nowhere.
They don't go anywhere much of the time ... but that's for a different reason admittedly!
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
It seems to be the only topic of interest on here.
To be fair, every morning Kay Burley triggers BigG. with some banal question to a Labour front bencher, BigG in turn triggers PB.
Well I suppose Kay is wise to steer clear of Partygate having form in that department herself.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
There is another potentially huge issue in US college sports - the value of scholarships, and the rules governing gender equality in terms of financing offered for them - means there are a huge number of second string male high school athletes who can easily get access to top universities, for free, if they just claim to identify as female.
The incentives are colossal, the drawbacks are pretty minimal, and they're all underage (at least when they apply), so can't even be reasonably asked to take testosterone reducing supplements. If not actively prevented from doing so, this is going to completely destroy US women's college sports inside a decade or so.
Catnip for Donald Trump, this sort of thing. It really needs sorting.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
As this toxic debate has deepened, I've noticed more hard science emerging on the actual physical differences between men and women. And they are enormous, in certain areas
For instance, the average 80 year old man has a stronger grip than the average 20 year old woman
1. Grip strength, an index of upper body strength, is highly sexually dimorphic: 90% of men are stronger than 90% of women. Could this help explain sex differences in emotional responses to adversity? A 🧵on a study lead by grad student @_carolinebsmith
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
It seems to be the only topic of interest on here.
To be fair, every morning Kay Burley triggers BigG. with some banal question to a Labour front bencher, BigG in turn triggers PB.
Well I suppose Kay is wise to steer clear of Partygate having form in that department herself.
But oddly not triggered when Sunak gets himself in a muddle, I wonder why?
Not coming to a bus or train near you...perhaps Asia though.
Dyson launches Zone air purifying Bluetooth headphones with visor
Dyson has announced its first wearable product that builds the firm’s air purification expertise into a set of Bluetooth noise cancelling headphones aimed at city dwellers wanting to avoid polluted air.
I have come to the conclusion that Scottish separatism is one massive conspiracy theory.
First, there is the paranoia associated with conspiracy theories, a paranoia that identifies a group as the enemy intent on damaging and even destroying Scotland. This sets up a typical conspiracy theory ‘them and us’ confrontation…… and the ‘traitors’, ‘quislings’, ‘not true Scots’ could ‘go back to England’, even if we have lived for decades in Scotland.
Second, conspiracy theories are based on prejudice. In the case of Scottish nationalism, this accords with a generalised resentment at a larger partner in the UK, England….
Third, conspiracy theories tend to be based on a suspicion of experts, who are able to explode the mythology on which any given conspiracy theory is based…..We see it in Scotland where people with stellar credentials in a field such as finance or economics are dismissed as ‘unionists’, or ‘yoons’, because they show nationalist claims to be false. We see it when nationalists dismiss the professional statisticians who compile the Scottish government’s financial statistical report, GERS….
Belief in a conspiracy theory involves confidence that one is standing on some moral high ground and that one’s adversaries are not.
Scots – by this interpretation are better people, more moral than the English, and in present day terms more ‘progressive’ and ‘social democratic’. The lie can be given to this belief by the way in which high rates of poverty and drug deaths persist in certain areas of Scotland. If Scots had been so moral, progressive and social democratic, would their government not have concentrated resources on the areas scarred by poverty and drug abuse, instead of appeasing the middle classes with a long council tax freeze and various ‘free’ benefits that were already ‘free’ to those in real need?
I am a Unionist through and through but that is ridiculous. The view that Scotland may do better as a nation looking out for its own interests rather than being a small and sometimes ignored part of a larger unit is not one I share but it is not a conspiracy theory to espouse it.
It's not ridiculous. There are definitely *elements* of conspiracy theory in Scot Nattery. The mad paranoia, the quasi-racist Anglophobia, and so on
For balance, as a Leaver, I readily accept that the same is true of some extreme Brexiteers. And now we see the same madness in extreme Remoaners, where Leave was all some brilliant plot by an evil Russia-funded cabal led by wicked Dom and Boris blah blah
It is probably true of all all passionate political debates, especially ones involving things like sovereignty (which are so emotional). They have the taint of the Grassy Knoll. All of them
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
The argument being put forward by Moonrabbit seems to be exactly the opposite. Since only a tiny minority of men commit such crimes we should have no rules to govern their behaviour at all. Such is the logical conclusion of her comments.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
The argument being put forward by Moonrabbit seems to be exactly the opposite. Since only a tiny minority of men commit such crimes we should have no rules to govern their behaviour at all. Such is the logical conclusion of her comments.
See my reply to Endillion... (rather than typing it twice)
I have come to the conclusion that Scottish separatism is one massive conspiracy theory.
First, there is the paranoia associated with conspiracy theories, a paranoia that identifies a group as the enemy intent on damaging and even destroying Scotland. This sets up a typical conspiracy theory ‘them and us’ confrontation…… and the ‘traitors’, ‘quislings’, ‘not true Scots’ could ‘go back to England’, even if we have lived for decades in Scotland.
Second, conspiracy theories are based on prejudice. In the case of Scottish nationalism, this accords with a generalised resentment at a larger partner in the UK, England….
Third, conspiracy theories tend to be based on a suspicion of experts, who are able to explode the mythology on which any given conspiracy theory is based…..We see it in Scotland where people with stellar credentials in a field such as finance or economics are dismissed as ‘unionists’, or ‘yoons’, because they show nationalist claims to be false. We see it when nationalists dismiss the professional statisticians who compile the Scottish government’s financial statistical report, GERS….
Belief in a conspiracy theory involves confidence that one is standing on some moral high ground and that one’s adversaries are not.
Scots – by this interpretation are better people, more moral than the English, and in present day terms more ‘progressive’ and ‘social democratic’. The lie can be given to this belief by the way in which high rates of poverty and drug deaths persist in certain areas of Scotland. If Scots had been so moral, progressive and social democratic, would their government not have concentrated resources on the areas scarred by poverty and drug abuse, instead of appeasing the middle classes with a long council tax freeze and various ‘free’ benefits that were already ‘free’ to those in real need?
I am a Unionist through and through but that is ridiculous. The view that Scotland may do better as a nation looking out for its own interests rather than being a small and sometimes ignored part of a larger unit is not one I share but it is not a conspiracy theory to espouse it.
It's not ridiculous. There are definitely *elements* of conspiracy theory in Scot Nattery. The mad paranoia, the quasi-racist Anglophobia, and so on
For balance, as a Leaver, I readily accept that the same is true of some extreme Brexiteers. And now we see the same madness in extreme Remoaners, where Leave was all some brilliant plot by an evil Russia-funded cabal led by wicked Dom and Boris blah blah
It is probably true of all all passionate political debates, especially ones involving things like sovereignty (which are so emotional). They have the taint of the Grassy Knoll. All of them
The claim that Boris is a Russian useful idiot equivalent to Trump or Corbyn is hilarious when the UK was the country doing the most to arm Ukraine, throughout his period of being FS and PM. Even when POTUS was trying to blackmail Ukraine with military aid.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
I am not in any way arguing that Non binary folks should be ostracised, joked about or attacked. I am saying that there need to be agreed sets of rules which all parts of reasonable society - and I would include everyone on here for example in that description - are comfortable with which prevent discrimination for everyone and protect the vulnerable. Just as we have those sorts of rules to govern, for example, male behaviour. That set of rules does not yet exist and their development is being hindered by the reaction of some vocal members of the Trans community who see any restriction or rules as an assault on them personally.
The hospital should not have been able to spend a year denying there was someone capable of raping a woman on the ward because of their Trans-policy . Nor should the prison have been able/forced to admit a sex offender into a women's prison where they were then able to commit further rapes. These are systemic failings which need to be addressed and proper policies put in place.
At the same time it is unfair to say to those born female that they will no longer be competitive in women's sport because we allow those born male and with the associated advantages to take part as female. It makes a mockery of women's sport and one might as will say there is no longer any such thing and just have men and women competing equally. Except of course it won't be equal.
I am not saying that there are any easy answers to these issues but the reaction from the Trans-lobby which shouts down any attempt to discuss or resolve these issues (Heathener on here being a good example of this) means that we are going to see ongoing discord and the usual nasty fringes taking advantages of this.
Some serious confusion here. Most trans people are, by definition, not non-binary - they were born in one gender, identify as the other, and want to live as the other to the highest degree possible. The idea that gender is not binary but exists on a continuum is a problem for them, because if that's the case, why do they need to transition at all? Grouping trans and non-binarys together is common among the activist community, but -insofar as I can tell - utterly unhelpful to most trans people.
Yes apologies I am using the same shorthands as the post to which I am responding. But the same basic arguments as I set out apply. I don't mind whether you are straight, gay, Non-binary or transitioned. All are equally valid lives in my view. But in the same way as I accept there are certain limits on my behaviour as a male based on my ability - but not predisposition - to commit certain crimes, those same limits should apply to any other members of society who have the same abilities. What we are doing at the moment is singling out one group and saying that the rules should not apply to them because of their unique status. We are setting their rights above those of everyone else and in some very extreme and limited cases putting others at risk as a result.
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
On your last paragraph, a mature Parliament could perhaps resolve this issue on a cross-party basis, perhaps through a Select Committee making recommendations on the law and accompanying guidance on practicalities.
Despite all the heat, I don't think a consensus view is very far away, and if both major parties could stop using it as a political football (particularly the Tories, I'm afraid), then I don't see why a solution could not be reached. Having reached such a common view, the extremists on both sides (transphobes vs. trans radicals) could safely be ignored.
I agree entirely. We have a clown on one side and a cowed leader on the other both of whom are, in very different ways, incapable of dealing with this in a mature manner. The select committee system seems to be the perfect forum to debate and resolve this to the satisfaction of both parties (I avoid the use of the word 'sides' as I think most reasonable people don't want to see this as a dividing issue). Trouble is I am not sure there are the right people in Parliament to actually deal with this at all.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
You seem to be Heathener in disguise.
Definitely not. I though Heathener was meant to be Leon? Or is it the other way round?
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
You seem to be Heathener in disguise.
Definitely not. I though Heathener was meant to be Leon? Or is it the other way round?
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
There is another potentially huge issue in US college sports - the value of scholarships, and the rules governing gender equality in terms of financing offered for them - means there are a huge number of second string male high school athletes who can easily get access to top universities, for free, if they just claim to identify as female.
The incentives are colossal, the drawbacks are pretty minimal, and they're all underage (at least when they apply), so can't even be reasonably asked to take testosterone reducing supplements. If not actively prevented from doing so, this is going to completely destroy US women's college sports inside a decade or so.
A minor quibble, but I'd say the drawbacks are greater than 'pretty minimal'. How much of what you do in your life is down to the need for self-respect, dignity? The need to do the right thing? Pretending to be a woman for financial gain is not only clearly the wrong thing to do, it's a wrong thing to do being done in a very public way. It's reputationally damaging. The trope of pretending to be a woman to get out of some male responsibility (typically fighting a war) is an old one, and the individual concerned is never portrayed well in such circumstances. But while it's not to be condoned, it is at least understandable: the inner coward in many of us can see what would make one do so. Pretending to be a woman in order to win a bicycle race, however, is less noble still.
I realise I am again sounding like someone from another era. I don't think this necessarily negates my argument though.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
The argument being put forward by Moonrabbit seems to be exactly the opposite. Since only a tiny minority of men commit such crimes we should have no rules to govern their behaviour at all. Such is the logical conclusion of her comments.
See my reply to Endillion... (rather than typing it twice)
Which does not in any way address the point I made. Or rather I don't understand the point you are making.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
As this toxic debate has deepened, I've noticed more hard science emerging on the actual physical differences between men and women. And they are enormous, in certain areas
For instance, the average 80 year old man has a stronger grip than the average 20 year old woman
1. Grip strength, an index of upper body strength, is highly sexually dimorphic: 90% of men are stronger than 90% of women. Could this help explain sex differences in emotional responses to adversity? A 🧵on a study lead by grad student @_carolinebsmith
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
The argument being put forward by Moonrabbit seems to be exactly the opposite. Since only a tiny minority of men commit such crimes we should have no rules to govern their behaviour at all. Such is the logical conclusion of her comments.
See my reply to Endillion... (rather than typing it twice)
Which does not in any way address the point I made.
I was not debating with Moonrabbit. I was just pointing out the fallacy of the anti-trans bandwagon that uses demonisation as a justification. A bandwagon that rolls through this place on a fairly regular basis.
FWIW, I think Moonrabbit is wrong. Rules apply to everyone and the consequences of breaking those rules should fall on the rule breakers themselves.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
You seem to be Heathener in disguise.
Definitely not. I though Heathener was meant to be Leon? Or is it the other way round?
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
I have come to the conclusion that Scottish separatism is one massive conspiracy theory.
First, there is the paranoia associated with conspiracy theories, a paranoia that identifies a group as the enemy intent on damaging and even destroying Scotland. This sets up a typical conspiracy theory ‘them and us’ confrontation…… and the ‘traitors’, ‘quislings’, ‘not true Scots’ could ‘go back to England’, even if we have lived for decades in Scotland.
Second, conspiracy theories are based on prejudice. In the case of Scottish nationalism, this accords with a generalised resentment at a larger partner in the UK, England….
Third, conspiracy theories tend to be based on a suspicion of experts, who are able to explode the mythology on which any given conspiracy theory is based…..We see it in Scotland where people with stellar credentials in a field such as finance or economics are dismissed as ‘unionists’, or ‘yoons’, because they show nationalist claims to be false. We see it when nationalists dismiss the professional statisticians who compile the Scottish government’s financial statistical report, GERS….
Belief in a conspiracy theory involves confidence that one is standing on some moral high ground and that one’s adversaries are not.
Scots – by this interpretation are better people, more moral than the English, and in present day terms more ‘progressive’ and ‘social democratic’. The lie can be given to this belief by the way in which high rates of poverty and drug deaths persist in certain areas of Scotland. If Scots had been so moral, progressive and social democratic, would their government not have concentrated resources on the areas scarred by poverty and drug abuse, instead of appeasing the middle classes with a long council tax freeze and various ‘free’ benefits that were already ‘free’ to those in real need?
I am a Unionist through and through but that is ridiculous. The view that Scotland may do better as a nation looking out for its own interests rather than being a small and sometimes ignored part of a larger unit is not one I share but it is not a conspiracy theory to espouse it.
It's not ridiculous. There are definitely *elements* of conspiracy theory in Scot Nattery. The mad paranoia, the quasi-racist Anglophobia, and so on
For balance, as a Leaver, I readily accept that the same is true of some extreme Brexiteers. And now we see the same madness in extreme Remoaners, where Leave was all some brilliant plot by an evil Russia-funded cabal led by wicked Dom and Boris blah blah
It is probably true of all all passionate political debates, especially ones involving things like sovereignty (which are so emotional). They have the taint of the Grassy Knoll. All of them
It's a very easy rabbit hole to go down. If you are so convinced that your argument is right that even someone quite dense would agree with you, then the only logical explanation for people disagreeing is that their motives are nefarious. I had to work very hard not to fall down this rabbit hole on covid restrictions, and didn't always succeed.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
No you didn't. I expressed the broadest possible version; you expressed a narrower one, on partisan grounds, that was therefore completely incoherent. You need to commit harder and overlook your biases.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
As this toxic debate has deepened, I've noticed more hard science emerging on the actual physical differences between men and women. And they are enormous, in certain areas
For instance, the average 80 year old man has a stronger grip than the average 20 year old woman
1. Grip strength, an index of upper body strength, is highly sexually dimorphic: 90% of men are stronger than 90% of women. Could this help explain sex differences in emotional responses to adversity? A 🧵on a study lead by grad student @_carolinebsmith
This is far better explanation than BBC "propaganda" downplaying Nazi / Far Right in Ukraine last week, explaining why they are tolerated and who enables this.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
You seem to be Heathener in disguise.
Definitely not. I though Heathener was meant to be Leon? Or is it the other way round?
It's the tone of bumtiously self-confident point missing
If there are reactionary types on here who like to other people, who are they?
In the mean time, this sort of thing happens: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hospital-dismissed-claim-of-rape-by-trans-attacker-bssxvbqch and it continues to happen because of tone-deaf orthodoxy clasping from people lke you, and the victims are 1. the women who get, actually, you know, raped, and 2. the genuinely trans whose enemies (if they exist to any greater extent than saboteurs in Stalinist Russia) are buoyed up by stories like this.
In a probably vain attempt to to move the conversation on from what's in our under where.
For those that are following the numbers put out by Oryx about destroyed tanks and so on from the war in Ukraine.
Has anybody been tracing the ratios of losses by type?
e.g. in the first week X destroyed tanks for every one captured but in week 4 that's up to Y destroyed for every one Captured. or anything like this. It may not show us much but it would be an opportunity to crunch some numbers.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
The argument being put forward by Moonrabbit seems to be exactly the opposite. Since only a tiny minority of men commit such crimes we should have no rules to govern their behaviour at all. Such is the logical conclusion of her comments.
See my reply to Endillion... (rather than typing it twice)
Which does not in any way address the point I made.
I was not debating with Moonrabbit. I was just pointing out the fallacy of the anti-trans bandwagon that uses demonisation as a justification. A bandwagon that rolls through this place on a fairly regular basis.
FWIW, I think Moonrabbit is wrong. Rules apply to everyone and the consequences of breaking those rules should fall on the rule breakers themselves.
Got you. Yes I agree on both points. But I would strongly dispute that anything I have said is anti-Trans any more than your second paragraph is.
One thing has become ultraclear since we were told yesterday by so many on here - no-one and i mean no-one is remotely interested in the issues surrounding sex and gender. It has generated zero interest - that much is plan for us all to see.
I'm not remotely interested in pizzas or Die Hard, but I keep reading about them on here.
So much so that you could have used the word "pineapples" and "Christmas" in place of "pizza" and "Die Hard" and most people would still have known what you were talking about.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
The argument being put forward by Moonrabbit seems to be exactly the opposite. Since only a tiny minority of men commit such crimes we should have no rules to govern their behaviour at all. Such is the logical conclusion of her comments.
See my reply to Endillion... (rather than typing it twice)
Which does not in any way address the point I made.
I was not debating with Moonrabbit. I was just pointing out the fallacy of the anti-trans bandwagon that uses demonisation as a justification. A bandwagon that rolls through this place on a fairly regular basis.
FWIW, I think Moonrabbit is wrong. Rules apply to everyone and the consequences of breaking those rules should fall on the rule breakers themselves.
Got you. Yes I agree on both points. But I would strongly dispute that anything I have said is anti-Trans any more than your second paragraph is.
I was not directing it at you.
It was a general point as this particular argument gets trotted out here on a regular basis.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
The argument being put forward by Moonrabbit seems to be exactly the opposite. Since only a tiny minority of men commit such crimes we should have no rules to govern their behaviour at all. Such is the logical conclusion of her comments.
See my reply to Endillion... (rather than typing it twice)
Which does not in any way address the point I made.
I was not debating with Moonrabbit. I was just pointing out the fallacy of the anti-trans bandwagon that uses demonisation as a justification. A bandwagon that rolls through this place on a fairly regular basis.
FWIW, I think Moonrabbit is wrong. Rules apply to everyone and the consequences of breaking those rules should fall on the rule breakers themselves.
Who is anti-trans? Very serious accusation, so justify or withdraw it.
Your problem is that you are too blinded by self-righteousness to distinguish between "transphobia" and an insistence that loopholes should not be created for exploiytation by the non-trans.
But, anyway: please copy and paste an anti-trans post from this site.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
As this toxic debate has deepened, I've noticed more hard science emerging on the actual physical differences between men and women. And they are enormous, in certain areas
For instance, the average 80 year old man has a stronger grip than the average 20 year old woman
1. Grip strength, an index of upper body strength, is highly sexually dimorphic: 90% of men are stronger than 90% of women. Could this help explain sex differences in emotional responses to adversity? A 🧵on a study lead by grad student @_carolinebsmith
My wife has very strong fingers, by virtue of hours of practising playing the flute.
Is that a euphemism?
Nope. She's really quite amazing. Can pick up a new tune very quickly. Was asked by my daughter to teach us how to play the Hedwig tune (from the Harry Potter films) on tin whistles and could work it out no problem (not recommended on a D whistle, really, since there are so many sharps and flats).
All the flute-playing does mean she also has advanced breath control.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
In a probably vain attempt to to move the conversation on from what's in our under where.
For those that are following the numbers put out by Oryx about destroyed tanks and so on from the war in Ukraine.
Has anybody been tracing the ratios of losses by type?
e.g. in the first week X destroyed tanks for every one captured but in week 4 that's up to Y destroyed for every one Captured. or anything like this. It may not show us much but it would be an opportunity to crunch some numbers.
I've not seen a way to extract data from the site, easily. So you'd have to go through manually, looking up what was destroyed/captured on each date etc...
The most discombobulating thing about this is that an MP 'hooked up with someone I met online'.
Hard to say this without appearing sniffy and hopelessly old-fashioned, but I would have thought MPs would have got that sort of thing out of their systems long before becoming MPs.
I felt just as uncomfortable when I read about Dehenna Davison's internet dating.
Or the PM of Finland going out clubbing and apparently not taking their phone to be contacted in an emergency.
Comments
Some of their campaigns are worthwhile but some of them really are an excercise in futility.
Tho I may be misremembering it as Galloway. The hat story wasn't THAT good
This is primarily a failure of politics - and one that both parties, indeed all parties, are failing over. There needs to be proper leadership which recognises the issues and passes legislation where necessary that addresses the issues. rather than being pushed by small vocal minorities into pretending there are no issues.
But if what the article is saying is that black people should not be expected to refrain from happy slapping people, that is purely and simply racism. It is like those who say black kids (particularly boys) shouldn't be expected to attain the same educational level as their white counterparts because they're learning 'white' subjects. It's a pernicious culture of low expectations for black people, and it should be called out as such.
He also interviewed Goering and Himmler.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30039300
What if Putin didn't miscalculate ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html
....The possibility is suggested in a powerful reminiscence from The Times’s Carlotta Gall of her experience covering Russia’s siege of Grozny, during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. In the early phases of the war, motivated Chechen fighters wiped out a Russian armored brigade, stunning Moscow. The Russians regrouped and wiped out Grozny from afar, using artillery and air power.
Russia’s operating from the same playbook today. When Western military analysts argue that Putin can’t win militarily in Ukraine, what they really mean is that he can’t win clean. Since when has Putin ever played clean?...
Woke
Brexit
Aliens
COVID conspiracy/panic
To be fair, if Jeremy Clarkson's assault of Piers Morgan been broadcast live on TV (it was an awards evening, by the way), then I think the reaction might have been a bit different, but I don't think that's entirely about race.
First, there is the paranoia associated with conspiracy theories, a paranoia that identifies a group as the enemy intent on damaging and even destroying Scotland. This sets up a typical conspiracy theory ‘them and us’ confrontation…… and the ‘traitors’, ‘quislings’, ‘not true Scots’ could ‘go back to England’, even if we have lived for decades in Scotland.
Second, conspiracy theories are based on prejudice. In the case of Scottish nationalism, this accords with a generalised resentment at a larger partner in the UK, England….
Third, conspiracy theories tend to be based on a suspicion of experts, who are able to explode the mythology on which any given conspiracy theory is based…..We see it in Scotland where people with stellar credentials in a field such as finance or economics are dismissed as ‘unionists’, or ‘yoons’, because they show nationalist claims to be false. We see it when nationalists dismiss the professional statisticians who compile the Scottish government’s financial statistical report, GERS….
Belief in a conspiracy theory involves confidence that one is standing on some moral high ground and that one’s adversaries are not.
Scots – by this interpretation are better people, more moral than the English, and in present day terms more ‘progressive’ and ‘social democratic’. The lie can be given to this belief by the way in which high rates of poverty and drug deaths persist in certain areas of Scotland. If Scots had been so moral, progressive and social democratic, would their government not have concentrated resources on the areas scarred by poverty and drug abuse, instead of appeasing the middle classes with a long council tax freeze and various ‘free’ benefits that were already ‘free’ to those in real need?
https://thinkscotland.org/2022/03/why-scottish-nationalism-has-the-anatomy-of-a-conspiracy-theory/
They basically have an open and shut case -- lack of face-to-face teaching, reduced contact hours, cancellation of field trips, laboratory classes, science practicals, examples classes & tutorials, lack of access to facilities and resources, cancellation of events associated with teaching & research such as exhibitions, end of year shows, presentations.
Some science undergraduates I know who started in 2019 will actually complete their science degree without any experimental classes whatsoever. The quality of education, and their consequent employability, has been hugely affected.
This should have been a dead-easy fight for the NUS to have won ...
Perhaps it's that some people are paedophiles and we should be improving the law to protect people from them, regardless of whether they're gay, trans or whatever else.
Despite all the heat, I don't think a consensus view is very far away, and if both major parties could stop using it as a political football (particularly the Tories, I'm afraid), then I don't see why a solution could not be reached. Having reached such a common view, the extremists on both sides (transphobes vs. trans radicals) could safely be ignored.
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Hence the absurd statements from Starmer, Rayner, et al. They are scared of their own militant activists
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hospital-dismissed-claim-of-rape-by-trans-attacker-bssxvbqch
He sure should with that bio! The swine!!
Do you believe gender trumps sex and sex is largely irrelevant to how society conducts itself? Because that’s at the root of the debate.
If you're going to label me - notably socially liberal - as an "extremist", then we might as well all give up
BBC actually have had to issue a statement in defence of their journalists covering the ferry scandal, which has implicated Sturgeon. There has been a massive pile-on from Cyber-Nats. You folk south of the border have little idea of what it's like up here if you challenge the Natocracy.
https://twitter.com/bbcscotnewspr/status/1509133169244745728
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
While there is a respectable case to be made for Scotland being independent it’s not one being made by the nationalists who hide behind demonisation and facile slogans.
The incentives are colossal, the drawbacks are pretty minimal, and they're all underage (at least when they apply), so can't even be reasonably asked to take testosterone reducing supplements. If not actively prevented from doing so, this is going to completely destroy US women's college sports inside a decade or so.
For instance, the average 80 year old man has a stronger grip than the average 20 year old woman
1. Grip strength, an index of upper body strength, is highly sexually dimorphic: 90% of men are stronger than 90% of women. Could this help explain sex differences in emotional responses to adversity? A 🧵on a study lead by grad student
@_carolinebsmith
https://twitter.com/ed_hagen/status/1496488028956725251?s=20&t=aXfJ3LBJYPAfefabb-Ld2w
Russia bombs Red Cross building in Mariupol as new drone footage shows apocalyptic scenes across the city
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10667775/Russia-bombs-Red-Cross-building-Mariupol.html
To be fair, every morning Kay Burley triggers BigG. with some banal question to a Labour front bencher, BigG in turn triggers PB.
Well I suppose Kay is wise to steer clear of Partygate having form in that department herself.
And actually we do treat all adults of either sex as potential abusers, hence CRB checks if you want to work with children.
Dyson launches Zone air purifying Bluetooth headphones with visor
Dyson has announced its first wearable product that builds the firm’s air purification expertise into a set of Bluetooth noise cancelling headphones aimed at city dwellers wanting to avoid polluted air.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/30/dyson-launches-zone-air-purifying-bluetooth-headphones-with-visor
For balance, as a Leaver, I readily accept that the same is true of some extreme Brexiteers. And now we see the same madness in extreme Remoaners, where Leave was all some brilliant plot by an evil Russia-funded cabal led by wicked Dom and Boris blah blah
It is probably true of all all passionate political debates, especially ones involving things like sovereignty (which are so emotional). They have the taint of the Grassy Knoll. All of them
https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2022/03/28/will-smith-was-wrong-hit-chris-rock
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
Some people say the same about trans people.
My point is that we need to protect people from paedophiles, gender, sex, is irrelevant in that case. Why the concentration on trans people?
The trans issue is incredibly complicated. But explaining why this is different to gay rights is very simple.
The trope of pretending to be a woman to get out of some male responsibility (typically fighting a war) is an old one, and the individual concerned is never portrayed well in such circumstances. But while it's not to be condoned, it is at least understandable: the inner coward in many of us can see what would make one do so. Pretending to be a woman in order to win a bicycle race, however, is less noble still.
I realise I am again sounding like someone from another era. I don't think this necessarily negates my argument though.
My wife has very strong fingers, by virtue of hours of practising playing the flute.
FWIW, I think Moonrabbit is wrong. Rules apply to everyone and the consequences of breaking those rules should fall on the rule breakers themselves.
I had to work very hard not to fall down this rabbit hole on covid restrictions, and didn't always succeed.
"Chinese fighting back …
Shenzhen China - mass protest against Covid lockdown."
https://twitter.com/daisymay4263/status/1507825608818012160?s=20&t=ny8XD502nmPDstCD5We5gw
"China's Covid-19 Outbreak: Hugely Consequential, Barely Discussed"
https://twitter.com/jimgeraghty/status/1509152285951205376?s=20&t=ny8XD502nmPDstCD5We5gw
"China Adds 8,655 Local Covid Cases for Tuesday, up from 6,886 on Monday"
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1508975871536910336?s=20&t=ny8XD502nmPDstCD5We5gw
This is potentially the next Hong Kong
And today South Korea reports another 424,000 cases. In a day
Are Putin's Claims About Ukrainian Nazis Real? - TLDR News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxM1TplHlos
If there are reactionary types on here who like to other people, who are they?
In the mean time, this sort of thing happens: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hospital-dismissed-claim-of-rape-by-trans-attacker-bssxvbqch and it continues to happen because of tone-deaf orthodoxy clasping from people lke you, and the victims are 1. the women who get, actually, you know, raped, and 2. the genuinely trans whose enemies (if they exist to any greater extent than saboteurs in Stalinist Russia) are buoyed up by stories like this.
For those that are following the numbers put out by Oryx about destroyed tanks and so on from the war in Ukraine.
Has anybody been tracing the ratios of losses by type?
e.g. in the first week X destroyed tanks for every one captured but in week 4 that's up to Y destroyed for every one Captured. or anything like this. It may not show us much but it would be an opportunity to crunch some numbers.
Shanghai:
"Protests grow against China’s zero-Covid lockdowns
"Video in Shanghai shows people demanding 'freedom' as workers in China go unpaid and people lose access to food"
https://twitter.com/Maytechummia/status/1509156679912415241?s=20&t=ny8XD502nmPDstCD5We5gw
And the door-welders are back
https://twitter.com/BertelSchmitt/status/1509161921391788032?s=20&t=ny8XD502nmPDstCD5We5gw
So, yes, I'd say Xi is in a spot
It was a general point as this particular argument gets trotted out here on a regular basis.
"Johnson told MPs the truth about parties to the best of his ability" says Raab
Your problem is that you are too blinded by self-righteousness to distinguish between "transphobia" and an insistence that loopholes should not be created for exploiytation by the non-trans.
But, anyway: please copy and paste an anti-trans post from this site.
Go ahead.
All the flute-playing does mean she also has advanced breath control.
"Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to the best of your abilities?"
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.