Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
That’s such a cop out. If you are afraid of the direction that a culture war could go, doesn’t it oblige you to take the issues more seriously and avoid blindly escalating it?
Such as proposing an unspecified reform of the Equality Act? Which has nowt to do with it, for example.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
What Cyclefree - and a load of prominent feminists - are doing is not taking sides in a culture war. It is taking a clear stance on one specific issue while retaining a previous stance on another issue.
It's perfectly possible to treat each issue on It's own merits, rather than take one of two packaged positions.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It is irrelevant where you stand on the hypothesis of man-made global warming. It is free market capitalism that is solving the energy problem, though neither Extinction Rebels nor denialists seem to have noticed. In that respect they are twins.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
So, what is the solution, if there is one at all, for someone who agrees with people on one side of the culture war on certain issues and with people on the other side on other issues? Does the culture was mean no nuance is possible, you either have to take everything or nothing? Whatever the merits or demerits of Cyclefree’s position, it seems bad for society if one can only choose between 2 packages. Is there no way to de-escalate?
Russia’s plans for post-war Europe. Great for Serbia and Ireland. Bad for Finland
Hubris on a level with Hitler if it's not just a piss take.
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
It’s a Russian joke - and it’s in response to earlier maps slicing up Russia following their ‘total defeat in Ukraine’
That said, I’m increasingly convinced Putin would not stop with Ukraine if he won. Why should he? He would take Moldova, possibly Georgia and the Baltics
Why would he take the Ukraine? Why would he aim to take Moldova and the other four? Those are the questions, not why should he refrain.
Did you see that the EU (or perhaps the "EUSSR" in Brexiteerspeak?) backed down this month over Kaliningrad?
I see my request for a better quality of Russian troll has been granted.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It takes two to tango.
If there's a "culture war" then there are two sides doing that, not one. So if you're telling only one side to stand down then you are participating yourself.
Still not seen any polling that shows Truss Tories ahead of Labour if she took over.
I’m sure we’d had polling of Johnson last time
Yes, Johnson clearly polled ahead of Labour in the last leadership election.
Truss might get a bounce, even pull ahead but the nightmare is she is the Tory Kim Campbell.
Campbell got a bounce to about 35 to 36% in the polls and even led some polls in her first 3 months as PM but by polling day in October her Progressive Conservative party collapsed to just 16%, losing votes to the populist right Reform who got 18% as well as to the Liberals to her left who won a landslide victory with 41%
Liz Truss is just a bit odd, something not quite right going on behind the eyes, a female Iain Duncan Smith. I predict she'll lead the Tories to a catastrophic defeat. May even be the last prime minister of the Tory party as we know it.
Anyways. This whole campaign has been entirely unedifying. The Tory Party is about power. But seems to have lost the pragmatic sense of the possible which is the key to it. They'll have to rely on Starmer being just as useless as they hope.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
What the hell is wrong with drag act story time?
Should Mrs Doubtfire be banned? Should Panto season?
Drag is perfectly natural and has been done for centuries in various guises in this country, not just a decade.
It is irrelevant where you stand on the hypothesis of man-made global warming. It is free market capitalism that is solving the energy problem, though neither Extinction Rebels nor denialists seem to have noticed. In that respect they are twins.
Yes. Eventually we will decarbonise and it will be technology and on-going human advancement that gets us there (despite those that deny there's any problem and certainly not because of those that would like us to returns to pre-industrial revolution days...)
A serious point about the Sunak speech is that the Equalities Act has held up remarkably well in terms of balancing competing rights in recent high profile cases. It's a very impressive bit of legislation.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
It is the hard right who are conflating all those things as if they are inherently one and the same.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
Your position is I notice - and I do not wish to be rude - that you do not engage with the very specific concerns I have raised about the deeply regressive stance that an allegedly progressive lobby group is adopting. Why? I wonder.
I am careful. I have a gay son. This is personal for me. It matters.
If "your side wins" I wonder whether you will feel the consequences. You are a man. If sex discrimination cannot be fought because sex is no longer relevant who wins? Men. Women will suffer. Gay children wrongly classified as dysphoric will suffer. Lesbians will suffer.
Not "will". Are. It is women and girls who are suffering now the consequences of a regressive ideology which seeks to evade or breach the existing law.
Just sorting out my energy this morning. A few comments:
- I'm reasonably competent at using spreadsheets (do it for a living) and this is far from simple - I can go for a fix or a variable - The energy company has provided zero explanation for how the price cap works when they have set out my options. I think many people, used to being on fixes, will have switched to the cheaper variable without even thinking about it - The energy company has priced their fix very well - it's just slightly less than my very rough projection of the weighted average for the variable tariff over the next 12 months. This brings me to... - Inflation* and the time value of money. The former suggests fix, the latter variable. I'm also going for promotion again, meaning that I'll have more cash to burn in the future (if I get it, 50:50). Hmmm. - Standard charges remain the same proportion of my estimated bill under the variable tariff, despite the massive increase in overall cost. They are a smaller proportion of the fix I have been offered, as the standing charges are the same. - I can't really use this in my decision making process: OFGEM just make up how they apply changes to the price cap (standing v unit rate), which is really fucking stupid. I'm drafting an email to them. - The £400 help we are getting really takes the edge off for me - Politically, there must be a chance something is done this winter to prevent disaster for many households. Do I hold off fixing in expectation?
*Note: I'm struggling with whether I should take inflation into account - energy costs are the inflation. Anyone help?
Sorry for the spam, helps to write this stuff out. And hopefully useful for other PBers facing the same problem.
I think it's useful. My comments are:
1 - Fixed price caps are not regulated, so have been exaggeratedly high for most. If your circs mean that is not true so much the better.
- The upside is that it protects you against price hikes in the variable rates from Oct. - The downside is if you are locked in and the worst does not happen or the Govt takes action that would have benefited you if you had stayed variable. - But usually you aren't locked in. So a key backstop is that you can switch out of it back to variable at little or no cost. If that is the case you have a big potential upside and little or no downside.
(My current 12 months fixed rate offer from Octopus involves both my unit rates more than doubling, but with zero penalty for switching back.).
2 - IMO Ofgem have been quite exhaustive explaining how they apply changes to fixed and variable elements of the bill. They explain here with lots of documents:
I don't understand Sunak's strategy. He's not only destroyed his chances in this campaign, he's destroyed his chances in the future, by being all over the place.
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
To be fair, I could fairly easily put together a critique of the 2010 Equalities Act and what it has led to - but I just know Rishi is pandering. Transparently pandering. And it's a real shame because I know at heart he's a nice guy who means no harm.
He might lose anyway but it's important he does so whilst maintaining respect rather than earning contempt.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
I don't understand Sunak's strategy. He's not only destroyed his chances in this campaign, he's destroyed his chances in the future, by being all over the place.
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
Because as I said almost two years ago now, he is utterly useless
Sunak is getting increasingly desperate and debasing himself. It's sad to see.
I think I subscribe to the view that it was pretty much over when the final two were announced (Tory MPs need to get better at realising this - the mood music for the candidates at membership level is pretty fixed so if they put an unpopular choice - like Rishi - in the final 2 they are pretty much voting for the other candidate).
But I have been amazed at just how poorly he has run this campaign. Any small chance that he could pull it back has just evaporated.
The key moment for me was his attitude to Truss in the debate on Monday - it came across as condescending and sneering and he walked away from it looking damaged.
I think there is a large part of him that is utterly amazed how he is losing. He doesn’t understand how after 2 years of people telling him he is the heir apparent and practising his Blair mannerisms in the mirror he is somehow losing to a woman who makes Gordon Brown look charismatic. Thing is, his appeal is incredibly superficial. When you watch him you see all the bad bits of Blair-like politicians - the insincerity seeping out of every pore. For all of Blair’s faults, there was substance and some genuinely held belief behind his politics. With Rishi it is an empty void.
Mr. Divvie, is he calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England?
Of course, if England had a Parliament, then the Commons could become something like what Brown appears to be supporting.
If there was an elected Senate as he proposes then the Lords would cease to exist full stop. However that does not necessarily stop the Church of England remaining the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor
With a Peggster at the wheel?
A pity the Tower of London is no longer in active use
Cripes, do you think Wills could accomodate that?
What could be more House of Windsor than a White Tower shaped strap on?
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
I personal don’t care a jot about drag act story time. It’s a bit weird, but plenty of things out there are a bit weird. Is seeing men in drag automatically traumatising? Where are the trail of young children traumatised by Pantomime dames?
Trans people & sport will shake out one way or another over time. People will get used to it, or else sports will decide they can’t abide the idea & ban trans people.
Some trans people absolutely report knowing their personal identity from a very young age. The way to treat a 2 year old is gentle affirmation & let them work things out for themselves. Most of them don’t have a strong idea of what gender is at that point anyway & they’ll work things out eventually, one way or another. Insisting on a particular gender presentation at 2 just seems counterproductive to me.
None of this seems like the end of the world, and in all of the above we are talking about tiny numbers of people.
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
I am not anti-trans and have never ever advocated for a reduction in their rights. I did point out that trans activists have been advocating for a rolling back of womens rights, contained in the Equalities Act, since 2015, but you wouldn't have it. And when their actions have been tested in the courts - see the Forstater and Bailey cases - they have lost. And when it has been tested by the science - see the Cass Report - action to roll back the damage they have and are doing is, I hope, stopped.
And I did also point out that I was worried about attacks on womens rights from those using the trans issue to do so. Unlike you I can see that womens rights and sexism occur on both the left and right. I do not take a binary view and assume - as you appear to do - that women can expect to be supported by one side only and attacked only by another. Sexism is pretty universal alas.
I note that the Labour Party - Wes Streeting , for instance - has said nothing about the Cass Report and what it recommends for the proper treatment of children with dysphoria. I notice that Dawn Butler had nothing to say when a black lesbian won her sex discrimination case against her chambers who had unwisely bought in to the TRA nonsense.
By the way I did read that article you sent me. Long and quite demanding but very interesting and thoughtful. It merits a second more careful reading. So thank you.
I‘m glad you enjoyed the article. It is one I come back to occasionally too. It asked questions that I don’t have answers to, that cut across my internal moral compasses.
I don’t think you see yourself as anti-trans, but I would say that you have allied yourself (implicitly or otherwise) with people who absolutely are anti trans & are using well meaning people like you as cover. People like you are then the respectable face of the movement; the people with reasonable concerns, the ones who don’t hate trans people, they just don’t want them to be difficult.
You are part of a movement that has swept up trans people in a culture war not of their own making, that seeks to use them as pawns in a political game. Can you see that from their point of view, whether you think you are anti-trans or not might appear somewhat sophist from their point of view?
The three people who have educated me most on this topic are two trans friends, their partners and a trans family member. They think that Stonewall et al have lost their way - badly on this. One is a long-time Labour Party member who is aghast at Labour's stance.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
It's really not "the left". It's a small subsection of the left, combined with quite a lot of folk who are far from being politically on the left.
I'm on the left, and so are most of my family and friends. I don't know anybody who is remotely interested in all this stuff.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
It is the hard right who are conflating all those things as if they are inherently one and the same.
JK Rowling and Joanna Cherry “hard right”?
Who knew?
It’s SOME ON the left’s “culture war” blinkers that are blinding them to the effectively anti-libertarian “woke” agenda. Why would you NOT want to collate stats on sex discrimination?
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
The thing is, labour and lib dem policy on this and so much else is far from the spotlight right now. In an election, it will be different.
People will want to know what all the parties intend to do about cultural issues going forward. This is where I feel labour and the liberals might have some difficulties. Particularly if Truss has the courage to put Kemi front and centre.
I don't understand Sunak's strategy. He's not only destroyed his chances in this campaign, he's destroyed his chances in the future, by being all over the place.
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
Yes. I thought Rishi would garner some credibility by being the the move-on-from-Boris candidate. But it's obvious the Tories want more Boris not less. He realized this too late and panic set in. Now his campaign is in freefall. History will barely note him.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
I personal don’t care a jot about drag act story time. It’s a bit weird, but plenty of things out there are a bit weird. Is seeing men in drag automatically traumatising? Where are the trail of young children traumatised by Pantomime dames?
Trans people & sport will shake out one way or another over time. People will get used to it, or else sports will decide they can’t abide the idea & ban trans people.
Some trans people absolutely report knowing their personal identity from a very young age. The way to treat a 2 year old is gentle affirmation & let them work things out for themselves. Most of them don’t have a strong idea of what gender is at that point anyway & they’ll work things out eventually, one way or another. Insisting on a particular gender presentation at 2 just seems counterproductive to me.
None of this seems like the end of the world, and in all of the above we are talking about tiny numbers of people.
You are an idiot. sorry, but there it is. You believe in "anti trans" people the way they believed in The Beast in LOTF. you think moral issues come in big packages and you can only subscribe to one package or the other, and why not get in touch with Keira Bell and tell her that what was done to her is not the end of the world, because she is only a tiny number of people?
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
I do get the "women's issue" angle on the transgender debate.
The concern is that if men can 'become' women based on nothing but their own say-so - plus gender replaces sex as a discriminator both legally and generally - this will threaten women's safety (eg prisons) and their ability to compete (eg sports) and their wider protections under equalities legislation (eg workplace discrimination).
You're confusing lack of agreement with lack of understanding.
Russia’s plans for post-war Europe. Great for Serbia and Ireland. Bad for Finland
Hubris on a level with Hitler if it's not just a piss take.
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
It’s a Russian joke - and it’s in response to earlier maps slicing up Russia following their ‘total defeat in Ukraine’
That said, I’m increasingly convinced Putin would not stop with Ukraine if he won. Why should he? He would take Moldova, possibly Georgia and the Baltics
Why would he take the Ukraine? Why would he aim to take Moldova and the other four? Those are the questions, not why should he refrain.
Did you see that the EU (or perhaps the "EUSSR" in Brexiteerspeak?) backed down this month over Kaliningrad?
As I read it, they did not back down.
The stated that their block did not apply to rail traffic from Russia to Kaliningrad, only to road traffic.
It is only a retreat if it did in fact apply to rail, which it seems it did not.
I don't understand Sunak's strategy. He's not only destroyed his chances in this campaign, he's destroyed his chances in the future, by being all over the place.
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
Panic. He thought Truss was so useless he'd be able to easily beat her (which is why he gamed the the MPs vote to get Penny out and Liz in.
Now he can see it's all falling apart and Liz will be PM he's is a blind panic. But the fact he was so foolish shows he isn't up to being PM in the first place.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
It is the hard right who are conflating all those things as if they are inherently one and the same.
JK Rowling and Joanna Cherry “hard right”?
Who knew?
It’s SOME ON the left’s “culture war” blinkers that are blinding them to the effectively anti-libertarian “woke” agenda. Why would you NOT want to collate stats on sex discrimination?
I’m not aware of Rowling or Cherry complaining about drag act story time. Both, as far as I know, believe trans people exist, so I don’t know that they dispute the existence of transgender toddlers. But let me know if you have more info.
I support collecting stats on sex discrimination. I don’t see what that has to do with the hard right conflating drag act story time with issues around transgendered individuals in sport.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
What Cyclefree - and a load of prominent feminists - are doing is not taking sides in a culture war. It is taking a clear stance on one specific issue while retaining a previous stance on another issue.
It's perfectly possible to treat each issue on It's own merits, rather than take one of two packaged positions.
I love it when someone with well known beliefs surprises you with one outside the "package". I have a very right-wing friend who gets very animated about prisoners not having the vote.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
We could start you off with Foucault’s “Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique”, I guess.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
We could start you off with Foucault’s “Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique”, I guess.
I don't understand Sunak's strategy. He's not only destroyed his chances in this campaign, he's destroyed his chances in the future, by being all over the place.
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
Panic. He thought Truss was so useless he'd be able to easily beat her (which is why he gamed the the MPs vote to get Penny out and Liz in.
Now he can see it's all falling apart and Liz will be PM he's is a blind panic. But the fact he was so foolish shows he isn't up to being PM in the first place.
If he’d found a way to get Penny into the final two, he’d still be in with a good chance - rather than a 10/1 outsider before the ballots even get posted out.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
It's really not "the left". It's a small subsection of the left, combined with quite a lot of folk who are far from being politically on the left.
I'm on the left, and so are most of my family and friends. I don't know anybody who is remotely interested in all this stuff.
It strikes me that there’s quite a lot of passionate intensity at both ends of the argument, and not always at the ends. There’s also a subset of people who are angry if other people don’t share their anger on the issue. Those angry birds seem to be mostly on one side of the argument on PB.
Isn’t the concern about drag act story time that men who dress up as women do so for a sexual kick? Panto is a bit different because that’s actors playing a part in a play.
The funny thing is, if it was trans person story time, that would be much more appropriate as it would be getting kids used to the idea that some people present as a different gender.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
We could start you off with Foucault’s “Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique”, I guess.
Interesting choice. Foucault
‘The French philosopher king continued to write extensively on chastity while allegations about his paedophilia were covered up’
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
So, what is the solution, if there is one at all, for someone who agrees with people on one side of the culture war on certain issues and with people on the other side on other issues? Does the culture was mean no nuance is possible, you either have to take everything or nothing? Whatever the merits or demerits of Cyclefree’s position, it seems bad for society if one can only choose between 2 packages. Is there no way to de-escalate?
Of course there is. The obvious way is not to take a binary approach.
So -
- separate loos, changing places, wards etc for transpeople wherever possible so that they are not put at risk. Those who attack them should be punished. - Always maintain a female only option. - Separate transgender prison facilities. - No male sex offenders in womens prisons at all. - Trans sportspersons who have gone through puberty to compete in the sex category they were born as in sports where strength and body shape matter. If there are sufficient numbers there could be a transgender category. - Proper research into offending rates of transpeople in order to determine whether offending rates for trans identified males are the same, worse or better than the offending rates than men - No undermining of safeguarding for children - Proper resourcing of medical care for adults with dysphoria - Proper scientific research into medical care for dysphoria, especially in relation to children - No involvement of lobby groups in the provision of medical care - Political parties to refuse money from those pharmaceutical companies manufacturing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones or surgery (I'm looking at you - Lib Dems). This - like the previous point - creates a conflict of interest which should be avoided. - Speed up the process of getting a proper medical diagnosis but no self-ID. Medical diagnoses are not self-identified.
There. There are practical solutions and compromises available.
Hampstead Ponds had 3 swimming areas: male, female, unisex. Guess what happened. The TRAs insisted on using the womens pool even though there was an alternative. So now Muslim and Jewish orthodox women and women who want to be with other women cannot use the female pond. There are now 2 unisex area and an exclusively male pond. When some women went into the male pond to protest, they were chased out. It is only women who are meant to be "inclusive". Not men, apparently.
I don't understand Sunak's strategy. He's not only destroyed his chances in this campaign, he's destroyed his chances in the future, by being all over the place.
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
Panic. He thought Truss was so useless he'd be able to easily beat her (which is why he gamed the the MPs vote to get Penny out and Liz in.
Now he can see it's all falling apart and Liz will be PM he's is a blind panic. But the fact he was so foolish shows he isn't up to being PM in the first place.
It was a massive miscalculation commented on on here at the time.
There was a solid consensus on here that in a Sunak v Truss matchup, Truss would be the overwhelming favourite to win.
For whatever reason, Team Sunak seemed to think it was their best matchup.
He’d have had a much better chance against Penny - likeable though she is, she was coming unstuck with every day that passed. Yes he could still have lost to her, but his chances were better.
It was a lazy calculation to think Truss = presentationally weird and therefore a pushover. She’s been much savvier courting the people she needed to court. And she’s actually getting better at the media stuff every time she does a debate.
Isn’t the concern about drag act story time that men who dress up as women do so for a sexual kick? Panto is a bit different because that’s actors playing a part in a play.
The funny thing is, if it was trans person story time, that would be much more appropriate as it would be getting kids used to the idea that some people present as a different gender.
If it gets Mrs. Brown's Boys off the telly then I'm all in favour.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
We could start you off with Foucault’s “Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique”, I guess.
I don't do Foucault. That looks like Szasz, RD Laing type shit about madness being a social construct. It isn't. If your point is that transness is mischaracterised as madness, I agree. If your point is about physical interventions to cure madness, lobotomies and such, there are better and more scholarly studies than Foucault.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
I do get the "women's issue" angle on the transgender debate.
The concern is that if men can 'become' women based on nothing but their own say-so - plus gender replaces sex as a discriminator both legally and generally - this will threaten women's safety (eg prisons) and their ability to compete (eg sports) and their wider protections under equalities legislation (eg workplace discrimination).
You're confusing lack of agreement with lack of understanding.
This is a big ticking time bomb for labour now.
When you look at some of the people senior labour figures have gone into bat for recently, including the right of a male child rapist to transition and serve his/her sentence in a women's prison, there's no way the tories are not going to weaponise this come election time.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
That’s deliberate - the Stonewall Trans-activist lobby seek to replace “sex” with “gender” hence gay people should be “same gender attracted” - and lesbians who don’t like trans women dick are homophobes.
My contempt is reserved for politicians - of all parties - who either mindlessly parrot this stuff or are too thick to interrogate it.
Of all the people to cite when defending the Extreme Trans Activist cause, I really wouldn’t go to Foucault
‘A fellow intellectual, Guy Sorman, has unleashed a storm among Parisian “intellos” with his claim that Foucault, who died in 1984 aged 57, was a paedophile rapist who had sex with Arab children while living in Tunisia in the late 1960s.
Sorman, 77, said he had visited Foucault with a group of friends on an Easter holiday trip to the village of Sidi Bou Said, near Tunis, where the philosopher was living in 1969. “Young children were running after Foucault saying ‘what about me? take me, take me’,” he recalled last week in an interview with The Sunday Times.
“They were eight, nine, ten years old, he was throwing money at them and would say ‘let’s meet at 10pm at the usual place’.” This, it turned out, was the local cemetery: “He would make love there on the gravestones with young boys. The question of consent wasn’t even raised.”’
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
I personal don’t care a jot about drag act story time. It’s a bit weird, but plenty of things out there are a bit weird. Is seeing men in drag automatically traumatising? Where are the trail of young children traumatised by Pantomime dames?
Trans people & sport will shake out one way or another over time. People will get used to it, or else sports will decide they can’t abide the idea & ban trans people.
Some trans people absolutely report knowing their personal identity from a very young age. The way to treat a 2 year old is gentle affirmation & let them work things out for themselves. Most of them don’t have a strong idea of what gender is at that point anyway & they’ll work things out eventually, one way or another. Insisting on a particular gender presentation at 2 just seems counterproductive to me.
None of this seems like the end of the world, and in all of the above we are talking about tiny numbers of people.
You are an idiot. sorry, but there it is. You believe in "anti trans" people the way they believed in The Beast in LOTF. you think moral issues come in big packages and you can only subscribe to one package or the other, and why not get in touch with Keira Bell and tell her that what was done to her is not the end of the world, because she is only a tiny number of people?
I believe that that the right is deliberately stirring up a culture war, with trans people as the out group du jour. In the past gay people were the target. Now we see much of the same rhetoric used against trans people: that they are child abusers, or tacitly encourage child abuse. That they corrupt children with their ideas about sexuality & gender. That they should be kept away from decent people who should not have to see them or interact with them. We’ve seen it all before & the echoes are very striking.
That doesn’t mean that the issues in question are a single block & some of them are complex & deal with cross-cutting rights & ethical imperatives. These need careful, sensible exploration. But those who are trying to push back on some advances that trans people have made should, I think, be aware that they may be participating in a culture war whether they intend to or not & that what they do may carry greater weight than perhaps they expect or intend.
No one thinks that GIDS was providing a good standard of care - they were widely critised by both sides, for a variety of reasons.
I don't understand Sunak's strategy. He's not only destroyed his chances in this campaign, he's destroyed his chances in the future, by being all over the place.
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
Panic. He thought Truss was so useless he'd be able to easily beat her (which is why he gamed the the MPs vote to get Penny out and Liz in.
Now he can see it's all falling apart and Liz will be PM he's is a blind panic. But the fact he was so foolish shows he isn't up to being PM in the first place.
It was a massive miscalculation commented on on here at the time.
There was a solid consensus on here that in a Sunak v Truss matchup, Truss would be the overwhelming favourite to win.
For whatever reason, Team Sunak seemed to think it was their best matchup.
He’d have had a much better chance against Penny - likeable though she is, she was coming unstuck with every day that passed. Yes he could still have lost to her, but his chances were better.
It was a lazy calculation to think Truss = presentationally weird and therefore a pushover. She’s been much savvier courting the people she needed to court. And she’s actually getting better at the media stuff every time she does a debate.
He is very young, very overpromoted, and I imagine that a Winchester plus Oxford plus GS plus CotE at the age of 23 career trajectory has left him thinking that nobody can tell him anything.
Isn’t the concern about drag act story time that men who dress up as women do so for a sexual kick? Panto is a bit different because that’s actors playing a part in a play.
The funny thing is, if it was trans person story time, that would be much more appropriate as it would be getting kids used to the idea that some people present as a different gender.
Panto and drag are not necessarily the same thing. Some drag acts are for adults only and simply not suitable for children. The National Theatre recently apologised for having a drag act at a family show who talked about children "opening their legs".
Here's a failure on my part - I work with someone who is trans, and I'm pretty sure I'm subconsciously avoiding conversations with them because I'm so scared of messing up the pro-nouns.
I really like them, excellent chat, great at their job - I'm doing it because I don't want to hurt them. I wonder if other Trans people have the same issue?
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
We could start you off with Foucault’s “Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique”, I guess.
I don't do Foucault. That looks like Szasz, RD Laing type shit about madness being a social construct. It isn't. If your point is that transness is mischaracterised as madness, I agree. If your point is about physical interventions to cure madness, lobotomies and such, there are better and more scholarly studies than Foucault.
Foucault is intensely dodgy
“the French media already knew about Foucault’s behaviour. “There were journalists present on that trip, there were many witnesses, but nobody did stories like that in those days. Foucault was the philosopher king. He’s like our god in France.”
With his trademark polo necks, a bald head and spectacles, Foucault, the son of a surgeon, was one of the first celebrity intellectuals of the 20th century remembered not only for his controversial analyses of prisons, madness and sexuality but for signing a petition in 1977 to legalise sex with children aged 13.”
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
I agree, but it is also true that aiding & abetting a culture war stirred up by the hard right for their own ends doesn’t usually end well for anyone involved.
It's not the hard right doing drag act story time. It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races. It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers. All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
I personal don’t care a jot about drag act story time. It’s a bit weird, but plenty of things out there are a bit weird. Is seeing men in drag automatically traumatising? Where are the trail of young children traumatised by Pantomime dames?
Trans people & sport will shake out one way or another over time. People will get used to it, or else sports will decide they can’t abide the idea & ban trans people.
Some trans people absolutely report knowing their personal identity from a very young age. The way to treat a 2 year old is gentle affirmation & let them work things out for themselves. Most of them don’t have a strong idea of what gender is at that point anyway & they’ll work things out eventually, one way or another. Insisting on a particular gender presentation at 2 just seems counterproductive to me.
None of this seems like the end of the world, and in all of the above we are talking about tiny numbers of people.
You are an idiot. sorry, but there it is. You believe in "anti trans" people the way they believed in The Beast in LOTF. you think moral issues come in big packages and you can only subscribe to one package or the other, and why not get in touch with Keira Bell and tell her that what was done to her is not the end of the world, because she is only a tiny number of people?
I believe that that the right is deliberately stirring up a culture war, with trans people as the out group du jour. In the past gay people were the target. Now we see much of the same rhetoric used against trans people: that they are child abusers, or tacitly encourage child abuse. That they corrupt children with their ideas about sexuality & gender. That they should be kept away from decent people who should not have to see them or interact with them. We’ve seen it all before & the echoes are very striking.
That doesn’t mean that the issues in question are a single block & some of them are complex & deal with cross-cutting rights & ethical imperatives. These need careful, sensible exploration. But those who are trying to push back on some advances that trans people have made should, I think, be aware that they may be participating in a culture war whether they intend to or not & that what they do may carry greater weight than perhaps they expect or intend.
No one thinks that GIDS was providing a good standard of care - they were widely critised by both sides, for a variety of reasons.
which is stupid. I remember from the 70s what really anti gay prejudice looks and sounds like. Anyone I ever see labelled as anti trans turns out aloways, always to be saying the same thing: Good on trans people, all the support in the world for them, BUT some boring but necessary housekeeping protections for women in spaces and in sport, and for children against irreversible alterations. Because there is no *real* anti trans lobby, the only way to conjure up the (non-existent) Beast is to characterise common sense on those issues as "transphobic."
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
That’s deliberate - the Stonewall Trans-activist lobby seek to replace “sex” with “gender” hence gay people should be “same gender attracted” - and lesbians who don’t like trans women dick are homophobes.
My contempt is reserved for politicians - of all parties - who either mindlessly parrot this stuff or are too thick to interrogate it.
Yes, I’m beginning to comprehend this now. It’s like an almighty scam. Get people so confused, and afraid of offending, they will consent to totally mad and dangerous proposals, without truly realising what they are doing
Isn’t the concern about drag act story time that men who dress up as women do so for a sexual kick? Panto is a bit different because that’s actors playing a part in a play.
The funny thing is, if it was trans person story time, that would be much more appropriate as it would be getting kids used to the idea that some people present as a different gender.
Panto and drag are not necessarily the same thing. Some drag acts are for adults only and simply not suitable for children. The National Theatre recently apologised for having a drag act at a family show who talked about children "opening their legs".
Not sure why drag acts would be for adults only? There's plenty of 'cis' filth for the grown ups which I know one star of Scottish panto dislikes and tries to get away from up here, eg
'During the show, she said, Barrowman fondled co-star Janette Krankie's breasts, and also invited audience members to chant "Alice loves Dick".'
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Trump Just Told Us His Master Plan If he gets in next time, he won’t be dislodged by any means.
"Trump sketched out a vision that a new Republican Congress could enact sweeping new emergency powers for the next Republican president. The president would be empowered to disregard state jurisdiction over criminal law. The president would be allowed to push aside a “weak, foolish, and stupid governor,” and to fire “radical and racist prosecutors”—racist here meaning “anti-white.” The president could federalize state National Guards for law-enforcement duties, stop and frisk suspects for illegal weapons, and impose death sentences on drug dealers after expedited trials."
I'm hoping he keeps making similar speeches. It might be enough to scare enough Democrats into voting in the mid-terms so I can collect on my longshot bet on a Democrat HoR majority.
I had actually been expecting a larger movement in the generic ballot after the Supreme Court abortion decision. There's some small movement towards the Democrats in some polls (e.g. Economist/YouGov now has the Dems +6 compared to Republicans +4 in the middle of June), but I think it would require Trump declaring his candidacy this year to really push up Dem turnout in the midterms & make a Dem victory possible.
Isn’t the concern about drag act story time that men who dress up as women do so for a sexual kick? Panto is a bit different because that’s actors playing a part in a play.
The funny thing is, if it was trans person story time, that would be much more appropriate as it would be getting kids used to the idea that some people present as a different gender.
Panto and drag are not necessarily the same thing. Some drag acts are for adults only and simply not suitable for children. The National Theatre recently apologised for having a drag act at a family show who talked about children "opening their legs".
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
No one is doing surgery on children for trans-related purposes, not in this country nor anywhere else that I’m aware of.
The most anyone is (was?) doing was puberty blockers. Which are not experimental in and of themselves: they’ve been used to delay puberty for decades.
Part of the new gender related NHS system appears to be a plan to run a clinical trial on their use for young trans people. If they were believed to be actively damaging, with no net positive effects then that would be impossible - no ethics committee would ever let the propsal out the door.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Do we (ie the NHS) pay the compensation, or the health care workers themselves?
Here's a failure on my part - I work with someone who is trans, and I'm pretty sure I'm subconsciously avoiding conversations with them because I'm so scared of messing up the pro-nouns.
I really like them, excellent chat, great at their job - I'm doing it because I don't want to hurt them. I wonder if other Trans people have the same issue?
Surely to have a conversation with someone the pronouns you need are I, me and you. Third person pronouns are for talking about someone, not talking to them.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Yes indeed. My excuse is that I turned away from this debate as it is so toxic. But now it is impacting friends and fam I can’t avert my gaze
I’m curious about apparently sensible people captured by this madness? Do they all sincerely believe it? Are they bullied into it? Is it a career move?
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
Neither did I. If it’s what’s claimed in the thread, it’s terrifying that the mainstream establishment seemed to sign up to it.
Mind you, I don’t actually support a ban on gay conversion therapy. It seems illiberal to me.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Yes indeed. My excuse is that I turned away from this debate as it is so toxic. But now it is impacting friends and fam I can’t avert my gaze
I’m curious about apparently sensible people captured by this madness? Do they all sincerely believe it? Are they bullied into it? Is it a career move?
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Do we (ie the NHS) pay the compensation, or the health care workers themselves?
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Yes indeed. My excuse is that I turned away from this debate as it is so toxic. But now it is impacting friends and fam I can’t avert my gaze
I’m curious about apparently sensible people captured by this madness? Do they all sincerely believe it? Are they bullied into it? Is it a career move?
The Tavistock / GIDS was a law unto themselves that was widely disliked & distrusted by trans people in the UK as far as I can tell.
Their replacement by a new, larger service that a) might be able to cope with demand and b) will operate under more transparency & according to the norms of trans healthcare elsewhere in Europe is probably a good thing for everyone involved.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
We could start you off with Foucault’s “Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique”, I guess.
I don't do Foucault. That looks like Szasz, RD Laing type shit about madness being a social construct. It isn't. If your point is that transness is mischaracterised as madness, I agree. If your point is about physical interventions to cure madness, lobotomies and such, there are better and more scholarly studies than Foucault.
My point is that you complain about the culture war while throwing around comparisons to the Nazis. Mengele considered his "subjects" to be subhuman and did many things out of pure sadism. If you think that a sensible comparison, I don't know what to say.
If you actually have an interest in the history of medicine so that you can do better with your comparisons, then there are many places you can start. One is Foucault. Foucault is definitely not saying the same as RD Laing. Foucault is saying that how society treats madness has changed over time, with incommensurable underlying assumptions as to what madness is during different periods. One might find that helpful if you want to talk about ideology in medicine. One could then go on to consider specific case studies, like the history of trepanning and the history of frontal lobotomies.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Yes indeed. My excuse is that I turned away from this debate as it is so toxic. But now it is impacting friends and fam I can’t avert my gaze
I’m curious about apparently sensible people captured by this madness? Do they all sincerely believe it? Are they bullied into it? Is it a career move?
It’s the result of what’s the modern version of “The long march through the institutions”, starting in academia and moving thought the civil service and quangos under Blair.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
No one is doing surgery on children for trans-related purposes, not in this country nor anywhere else that I’m aware of.
The most anyone is (was?) doing was puberty blockers. Which are not experimental in and of themselves: they’ve been used to delay puberty for decades.
Part of the new gender related NHS system appears to be a plan to run a clinical trial on their use for young trans people. If they were believed to be actively damaging, with no net positive effects then that would be impossible - no ethics committee would ever let the propsal out the door.
Many parents, informed by trans activist groups their child may commit suicide if they went through the “wrong puberty”, signed the consent form. Others did research: they discovered that Lupron, while used to chemically castrate sex offenders or treat prostate cancer, is unlicensed for gender dysphoria. They read blogs by “detransitioners”, mainly young women in America – where private gender clinics perform double mastectomies on girls as young as 13 (a process TikTok-savvy surgeons jocularly call “Teetus Deletus”) – who later regretted this hasty, irreversible process. And they felt an urgent mission to tell the world what GIDS was doing.
[That is a london Times bit of journalism despite the url]
and
Scottish doctors approved breast removal for 51 trans teenagers
OK not children by local standards, but under 18 in all cases
And puberty blockers from age 11 at the Tavistock. Listen to Keira Bell speak to understand how potent these are. She has detransitioned, but her voice hasn't.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
No one is doing surgery on children for trans-related purposes, not in this country nor anywhere else that I’m aware of.
The most anyone is (was?) doing was puberty blockers. Which are not experimental in and of themselves: they’ve been used to delay puberty for decades.
Part of the new gender related NHS system appears to be a plan to run a clinical trial on their use for young trans people. If they were believed to be actively damaging, with no net positive effects then that would be impossible - no ethics committee would ever let the propsal out the door.
That is simply not true. Girls - like Keira Bell - are having double mastectomies by the age of 20 having been put in puberty blockers at 16 and cross-sex hormones at 17. Puberty blockers have not been properly tested for use on children. There was little research on their long-term effects let alone their effects on girls, such research as there was having largely been done on boys. Nor, amazingly, was there any follow up on the children treated by the Tavistock once they reached the age of 18. Their effects were claimed to be reversible when some research suggests they are not.
And so on.
This is not new knowledge. Whistleblowers have been raising these issues for years. And yet on the Tavistock ploughed. It preferred to listen to the founder of Mermaids, a woman with no medical qualifications whatsoever, than to its own expert professionals, many of whom it drove out.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
We could start you off with Foucault’s “Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique”, I guess.
I don't do Foucault. That looks like Szasz, RD Laing type shit about madness being a social construct. It isn't. If your point is that transness is mischaracterised as madness, I agree. If your point is about physical interventions to cure madness, lobotomies and such, there are better and more scholarly studies than Foucault.
My point is that you complain about the culture war while throwing around comparisons to the Nazis. Mengele considered his "subjects" to be subhuman and did many things out of pure sadism. If you think that a sensible comparison, I don't know what to say.
If you actually have an interest in the history of medicine so that you can do better with your comparisons, then there are many places you can start. One is Foucault. Foucault is definitely not saying the same as RD Laing. Foucault is saying that how society treats madness has changed over time, with incommensurable underlying assumptions as to what madness is during different periods. One might find that helpful if you want to talk about ideology in medicine. One could then go on to consider specific case studies, like the history of trepanning and the history of frontal lobotomies.
I have a PhD in the history of medicine.
I have encountered Foucault in non medical, historical/classical contexts, and judged him to be an arse and a windbag.
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
Yes indeed. My excuse is that I turned away from this debate as it is so toxic. But now it is impacting friends and fam I can’t avert my gaze
I’m curious about apparently sensible people captured by this madness? Do they all sincerely believe it? Are they bullied into it? Is it a career move?
The Tavistock / GIDS was a law unto themselves that was widely disliked & distrusted by trans people in the UK as far as I can tell.
Their replacement by a new, larger service that a) might be able to cope with demand and b) will operate under more transparency & according to the norms of trans healthcare elsewhere in Europe is probably a good thing for everyone involved.
If the new service follows what is happening in France, Sweden and Finland, which have put a halt to the use of puberty blockers and look at the child holistically then that will be a good thing.
Whatever is done should be based on proper scientific research not on what lobby groups demand.
Interesting development IMO. The latest Dutch opinion poll has the governing VVP in first place on just 14%. In second place on 11.5% is the Farmer-Citizen Movement which polled 1% at the last election.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
And that illustrates precisely your problem. you can't think with with any degree of discrimination at all, you can only pattern match to side A or B in a "culture war" in your head, just as some single celled organisms have light/dark discrimination, and you think trans means gay only even more so. And you are probably genuinely upset to learn that the natural outcome of this is ideologically driven, irreversible physical experimentation on (mainly gay) children, in the 21stC UK, of a kind of which Mengele would have been proud. With better anaesthetics to be fair.
Comparisons to Mengele don’t exactly suggest you are rising above the culture war rhetoric yourself.
Happy to adopt a more neutral parallel case of ideologically driven surgical experiments on children if you can point me to one.
No one is doing surgery on children for trans-related purposes, not in this country nor anywhere else that I’m aware of.
The most anyone is (was?) doing was puberty blockers. Which are not experimental in and of themselves: they’ve been used to delay puberty for decades.
Part of the new gender related NHS system appears to be a plan to run a clinical trial on their use for young trans people. If they were believed to be actively damaging, with no net positive effects then that would be impossible - no ethics committee would ever let the propsal out the door.
That is simply not true. Girls - like Keira Bell - are having double mastectomies by the age of 20 having been put in puberty blockers at 16 and cross-sex hormones at 17. Puberty blockers have not been properly tested for use on children. There was little research on their long-term effects let alone their effects on girls, such research as there was having largely been done on boys. Nor, amazingly, was there any follow up on the children treated by the Tavistock once they reached the age of 18. Their effects were claimed to be reversible when some research suggests they are not.
And so on.
This is not new knowledge. Whistleblowers have been raising these issues for years. And yet on the Tavistock ploughed. It preferred to listen to the founder of Mermaids, a woman with no medical qualifications whatsoever, than to its own expert professionals, many of whom it drove out.
Can you explain how what you’ve written demonstrates that what I wrote was false? Because I‘m not seeing it!
I said children were not getting surgery, you respond with an individual who received surgery at age 20.
Puberty blockers have been given to children to delay puberty for decades. The clue is in the name.
What is not well characterised is the consequences of delaying puberty indefinitely. Hence the clinical trial, which I described.
Of all the people to cite when defending the Extreme Trans Activist cause, I really wouldn’t go to Foucault
‘A fellow intellectual, Guy Sorman, has unleashed a storm among Parisian “intellos” with his claim that Foucault, who died in 1984 aged 57, was a paedophile rapist who had sex with Arab children while living in Tunisia in the late 1960s.
Sorman, 77, said he had visited Foucault with a group of friends on an Easter holiday trip to the village of Sidi Bou Said, near Tunis, where the philosopher was living in 1969. “Young children were running after Foucault saying ‘what about me? take me, take me’,” he recalled last week in an interview with The Sunday Times.
“They were eight, nine, ten years old, he was throwing money at them and would say ‘let’s meet at 10pm at the usual place’.” This, it turned out, was the local cemetery: “He would make love there on the gravestones with young boys. The question of consent wasn’t even raised.”’
Foucault argued that children could give sexual consent.[185] In 1977, along with Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, and other intellectuals, Foucault signed a petition to the French parliament calling for the decriminalization of all "consensual" sexual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen, the age of consent in France.[186][187]"
Still not seen any polling that shows Truss Tories ahead of Labour if she took over.
I’m sure we’d had polling of Johnson last time
Yes, Johnson clearly polled ahead of Labour in the last leadership election.
Truss might get a bounce, even pull ahead but the nightmare is she is the Tory Kim Campbell.
Campbell got a bounce to about 35 to 36% in the polls and even led some polls in her first 3 months as PM but by polling day in October her Progressive Conservative party collapsed to just 16%, losing votes to the populist right Reform who got 18% as well as to the Liberals to her left who won a landslide victory with 41%
Liz Truss is just a bit odd, something not quite right going on behind the eyes, a female Iain Duncan Smith. I predict she'll lead the Tories to a catastrophic defeat. May even be the last prime minister of the Tory party as we know it.
A decent attempt to cheer us up on this partly sunny Saturday.
Phil - Could you explain to us why you reject the theory of evolution?
(I agree that the theory has a lot of unpleasant implications, but think it better to face the evidence that it is, in its modern form, broadly correct.)
Phil - Could you explain to us why you reject the theory of evolution?
(I agree that the theory has a lot of unpleasant implications, but think it better to face the evidence that it is, in its modern form, broadly correct.)
Liz "Free The Weed" Truss is growing on me. Even if she doesn't want to free the weed anymore
"At one freshers’ week, Lib Dem members including Alan Renwick, a friend of Truss who is now an academic on constitutional affairs, were decorating a stall and Truss, then a believer in cannabis legalisation, had a particular vision of how it should look. “She wanted the whole stall to be covered with these posters saying: ‘Free the Weed’, so I was scurrying around after Liz, trying to take these down again and put up a variety of different messages rather than just having this one message all over the stall,” Renwick told BBC Radio 4. She was putting them up again just as quickly." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/30/liz-truss-profile-ambition-charm-thick-skin-thatcher
Don’t ever forget what the LGBTQ+ movement and the liberal left were trying to do by banning ‘trans conversion therapy’. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Kafka meets Orwell, but I hope this short thread explains. And makes you angry.
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
To my shame, I had no idea what ‘trans conversion therapy’ was. I too presumed it was something horrible like gay conversion therapy
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The Cass Interim Report spells it all out. As does the judgment in the Keira Bell case. As do the multiple whistleblowers at the Tavistock who were ignored. Or the parents who presented evidence about the harm and lack of evidence to the Chief Executive in 2018, which he ignored.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
I think you’ll agree with much of their analysis of the Tavistock, even if you don’t agree with much else!
Thanks. I prefer reading the judgments to be honest rather than simply an analysis by others. But will have a look.
I am surprised you are recommending them though. Gender GP are the Webberleys, are they not? Both of whom have been were suspended from practising in the U.K., no? For serious misconduct in the case of 3 young patients in the case of Helen Webberley. She was previously convicted of practising without the appropriate registration. They moved their practice to Spain and one of them recently said that no matter what the Cass Report says they will continue to prescribe hormones to children.
Comments
(And still thinks Truss is nuts).
And it is more than a bit disappointing. It is very disappointing.
Incidentally you should read these two articles if you really want to understand them -
1. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly
2. https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/06/14/what-finance-can-tell-us-about-the-trans-self-id-debate/ (my own modest contribution).
It's perfectly possible to treat each issue on It's own merits, rather than take one of two packaged positions.
The only thing Cummings believes in is the genius of Cummings.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/28/britain-will-soon-have-glut-cheap-power-world-leading-batteries/
https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/1553339342805934087
I’m thinking a C grade out of A-H
It's not the hard right putting men in women's swimming races.
It's not the hard right coming up with the concept of transgender toddlers.
All the pushing over the last decade has come from the left.
If there's a "culture war" then there are two sides doing that, not one. So if you're telling only one side to stand down then you are participating yourself.
The Tory Party is about power. But seems to have lost the pragmatic sense of the possible which is the key to it.
They'll have to rely on Starmer being just as useless as they hope.
Should Mrs Doubtfire be banned? Should Panto season?
Drag is perfectly natural and has been done for centuries in various guises in this country, not just a decade.
A serious point about the Sunak speech is that the Equalities Act has held up remarkably well in terms of balancing competing rights in recent high profile cases. It's a very impressive bit of legislation.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1553327274031734785?s=20&t=PKJjsEwPhW-74W0-xe5USw
I am careful. I have a gay son. This is personal for me. It matters.
If "your side wins" I wonder whether you will feel the consequences. You are a man. If sex discrimination cannot be fought because sex is no longer relevant who wins? Men. Women will suffer. Gay children wrongly classified as dysphoric will suffer. Lesbians will suffer.
Not "will". Are. It is women and girls who are suffering now the consequences of a regressive ideology which seeks to evade or breach the existing law.
1 - Fixed price caps are not regulated, so have been exaggeratedly high for most. If your circs mean that is not true so much the better.
- The upside is that it protects you against price hikes in the variable rates from Oct.
- The downside is if you are locked in and the worst does not happen or the Govt takes action that would have benefited you if you had stayed variable.
- But usually you aren't locked in. So a key backstop is that you can switch out of it back to variable at little or no cost. If that is the case you have a big potential upside and little or no downside.
(My current 12 months fixed rate offer from Octopus involves both my unit rates more than doubling, but with zero penalty for switching back.).
2 - IMO Ofgem have been quite exhaustive explaining how they apply changes to fixed and variable elements of the bill. They explain here with lots of documents:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/default-tariff-cap-level-1-april-2022-30-september-2022
Summarised more succinctly here. Basically it's related to the division of fixed and variable costs for the supplier. The latter go into the standing charge level.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/mar/06/why-is-my-standing-charge-up-by-80-energy-firms-pile-on-the-agony
Sunak had one job in this campaign. To try to win by being a sensible, sound money, safe pair of hands, traditional one-nation Tory in favour of Brexit but also in favour of healing divisions. That was his only chance - he would probably still have lost, but he had a chance. But now, the anti-woke, anti-migrant, cutting VAT on fuel etc. stuff that he's coming out with is trying to appeal to Tory members that Truss has already got sewn up. Why on earth has he done this? Baffling, and a bit bonkers.
To be fair, I could fairly easily put together a critique of the 2010 Equalities Act and what it has led to - but I just know Rishi is pandering. Transparently pandering. And it's a real shame because I know at heart he's a nice guy who means no harm.
He might lose anyway but it's important he does so whilst maintaining respect rather than earning contempt.
https://twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1553312461327056898?s=20&t=PKJjsEwPhW-74W0-xe5USw
And the real kicker? We were saved from this barbaric law at the eleventh hour by the Tory government of Boris Johnson which, venal and incompetent as it was, was able to spot a pig in a poke. What does that say about these clowns?
But I have been amazed at just how poorly he has run this campaign. Any small chance that he could pull it back has just evaporated.
The key moment for me was his attitude to Truss in the debate on Monday - it came across as condescending and sneering and he walked away from it looking damaged.
I think there is a large part of him that is utterly amazed how he is losing. He doesn’t understand how after 2 years of people telling him he is the heir apparent and practising his Blair mannerisms in the mirror he is somehow losing to a woman who makes Gordon Brown look charismatic. Thing is, his appeal is incredibly superficial. When you watch him you see all the bad bits of Blair-like politicians - the insincerity seeping out of every pore. For all of Blair’s faults, there was substance and some genuinely held belief behind his politics. With Rishi it is an empty void.
Trans people & sport will shake out one way or another over time. People will get used to it, or else sports will decide they can’t abide the idea & ban trans people.
Some trans people absolutely report knowing their personal identity from a very young age. The way to treat a 2 year old is gentle affirmation & let them work things out for themselves. Most of them don’t have a strong idea of what gender is at that point anyway & they’ll work things out eventually, one way or another. Insisting on a particular gender presentation at 2 just seems counterproductive to me.
None of this seems like the end of the world, and in all of the above we are talking about tiny numbers of people.
I'm on the left, and so are most of my family and friends. I don't know anybody who is remotely interested in all this stuff.
Who knew?
It’s SOME ON the left’s “culture war” blinkers that are blinding them to the effectively anti-libertarian “woke” agenda. Why would you NOT want to collate stats on sex discrimination?
People will want to know what all the parties intend to do about cultural issues going forward. This is where I feel labour and the liberals might have some difficulties. Particularly if Truss has the courage to put Kemi front and centre.
The concern is that if men can 'become' women based on nothing but their own say-so - plus gender replaces sex as a discriminator both legally and generally - this will threaten women's
safety (eg prisons) and their ability to compete (eg sports) and their wider protections under equalities legislation (eg workplace discrimination).
You're confusing lack of agreement with lack of understanding.
The stated that their block did not apply to rail traffic from Russia to Kaliningrad, only to road traffic.
It is only a retreat if it did in fact apply to rail, which it seems it did not.
Now he can see it's all falling apart and Liz will be PM he's is a blind panic. But the fact he was so foolish shows he isn't up to being PM in the first place.
I support collecting stats on sex discrimination. I don’t see what that has to do with the hard right conflating drag act story time with issues around transgendered individuals in sport.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/07/hungary-pre-qualifying-2022.html
Kudos to anyone who slapped money on Latifi in light of the weather.
That’s an eye opening thread. The entire trans activist sandcastle is crumbling
The funny thing is, if it was trans person story time, that would be much more appropriate as it would be getting kids used to the idea that some people present as a different gender.
‘The French philosopher king continued to write extensively on chastity while allegations about his paedophilia were covered up’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/france-s-reverence-for-intellectuals-shielded-michel-foucault-from-scandal
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-philosopher-michel-foucault-abused-boys-in-tunisia-6t5sj7jvw
So -
- separate loos, changing places, wards etc for transpeople wherever possible so that they are not put at risk. Those who attack them should be punished.
- Always maintain a female only option.
- Separate transgender prison facilities.
- No male sex offenders in womens prisons at all.
- Trans sportspersons who have gone through puberty to compete in the sex category they were born as in sports where strength and body shape matter. If there are sufficient numbers there could be a transgender category.
- Proper research into offending rates of transpeople in order to determine whether offending rates for trans identified males are the same, worse or better than the offending rates than men
- No undermining of safeguarding for children
- Proper resourcing of medical care for adults with dysphoria
- Proper scientific research into medical care for dysphoria, especially in relation to children
- No involvement of lobby groups in the provision of medical care
- Political parties to refuse money from those pharmaceutical companies manufacturing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones or surgery (I'm looking at you - Lib Dems). This - like the previous point - creates a conflict of interest which should be avoided.
- Speed up the process of getting a proper medical diagnosis but no self-ID. Medical diagnoses are not self-identified.
There. There are practical solutions and compromises available.
Hampstead Ponds had 3 swimming areas: male, female, unisex. Guess what happened. The TRAs insisted on using the womens pool even though there was an alternative. So now Muslim and Jewish orthodox women and women who want to be with other women cannot use the female pond. There are now 2 unisex area and an exclusively male pond. When some women went into the male pond to protest, they were chased out. It is only women who are meant to be "inclusive". Not men, apparently.
There was a solid consensus on here that in a Sunak v Truss matchup, Truss would be the overwhelming favourite to win.
For whatever reason, Team Sunak seemed to think it was their best matchup.
He’d have had a much better chance against Penny - likeable though she is, she was coming unstuck with every day that passed. Yes he could still have lost to her, but his chances were better.
It was a lazy calculation to think Truss = presentationally weird and therefore a pushover. She’s been much savvier courting the people she needed to court. And she’s actually getting better at the media stuff every time she does a debate.
When you look at some of the people senior labour figures have gone into bat for recently, including the right of a male child rapist to transition and serve his/her sentence in a women's prison, there's no way the tories are not going to weaponise this come election time.
My contempt is reserved for politicians - of all parties - who either mindlessly parrot this stuff or are too thick to interrogate it.
‘A fellow intellectual, Guy Sorman, has unleashed a storm among Parisian “intellos” with his claim that Foucault, who died in 1984 aged 57, was a paedophile rapist who had sex with Arab children while living in Tunisia in the late 1960s.
Sorman, 77, said he had visited Foucault with a group of friends on an Easter holiday trip to the village of Sidi Bou Said, near Tunis, where the philosopher was living in 1969. “Young children were running after Foucault saying ‘what about me? take me, take me’,” he recalled last week in an interview with The Sunday Times.
“They were eight, nine, ten years old, he was throwing money at them and would say ‘let’s meet at 10pm at the usual place’.” This, it turned out, was the local cemetery: “He would make love there on the gravestones with young boys. The question of consent wasn’t even raised.”’
(From that Times article linked below; £££)
It's capped - based on wholesale and network costs.
If costs fall why wouldn't the price cap reduce?
It reduced by about 15% in Feb 2020. I'd expect a reduction in the future as costs reduce.
https://heatable.co.uk/boiler-advice/history-of-ofgems-energy-price-cap
That doesn’t mean that the issues in question are a single block & some of them are complex & deal with cross-cutting rights & ethical imperatives. These need careful, sensible exploration. But those who are trying to push back on some advances that trans people have made should, I think, be aware that they may be participating in a culture war whether they intend to or not & that what they do may carry greater weight than perhaps they expect or intend.
No one thinks that GIDS was providing a good standard of care - they were widely critised by both sides, for a variety of reasons.
I really like them, excellent chat, great at their job - I'm doing it because I don't want to hurt them. I wonder if other Trans people have the same issue?
“the French media already knew about Foucault’s behaviour. “There were journalists present on that trip, there were many witnesses, but nobody did stories like that in those days. Foucault was the philosopher king. He’s like our god in France.”
With his trademark polo necks, a bald head and spectacles, Foucault, the son of a surgeon, was one of the first celebrity intellectuals of the 20th century remembered not only for his controversial analyses of prisons, madness and sexuality but for signing a petition in 1977 to legalise sex with children aged 13.”
'During the show, she said, Barrowman fondled co-star Janette Krankie's breasts, and also invited audience members to chant "Alice loves Dick".'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-42349690
Apols for gratuitous image.
The scientific evidence for much of what the Tavistock did simply is not there. God knows how they can say they got informed consent for their treatment. The legal liability they now face is dreadful.
I had actually been expecting a larger movement in the generic ballot after the Supreme Court abortion decision. There's some small movement towards the Democrats in some polls (e.g. Economist/YouGov now has the Dems +6 compared to Republicans +4 in the middle of June), but I think it would require Trump declaring his candidacy this year to really push up Dem turnout in the midterms & make a Dem victory possible.
The most anyone is (was?) doing was puberty blockers. Which are not experimental in and of themselves: they’ve been used to delay puberty for decades.
Part of the new gender related NHS system appears to be a plan to run a clinical trial on their use for young trans people. If they were believed to be actively damaging, with no net positive effects then that would be impossible - no ethics committee would ever let the propsal out the door.
I’m curious about apparently sensible people captured by this madness? Do they all sincerely believe it? Are they bullied into it? Is it a career move?
If it’s what’s claimed in the thread, it’s terrifying that the mainstream establishment seemed to sign up to it.
Mind you, I don’t actually support a ban on gay conversion therapy. It seems illiberal to me.
I’m curious about apparently sensible people captured by this madness? Do they all sincerely believe it? Are they bullied into it? Is it a career move?
I think you’ll agree with much of their analysis of the Tavistock, even if you don’t agree with much else!
Their replacement by a new, larger service that a) might be able to cope with demand and b) will operate under more transparency & according to the norms of trans healthcare elsewhere in Europe is probably a good thing for everyone involved.
If you actually have an interest in the history of medicine so that you can do better with your comparisons, then there are many places you can start. One is Foucault. Foucault is definitely not saying the same as RD Laing. Foucault is saying that how society treats madness has changed over time, with incommensurable underlying assumptions as to what madness is during different periods. One might find that helpful if you want to talk about ideology in medicine. One could then go on to consider specific case studies, like the history of trepanning and the history of frontal lobotomies.
Many parents, informed by trans activist groups their child may commit suicide if they went through the “wrong puberty”, signed the consent form. Others did research: they discovered that Lupron, while used to chemically castrate sex offenders or treat prostate cancer, is unlicensed for gender dysphoria. They read blogs by “detransitioners”, mainly young women in America – where private gender clinics perform double mastectomies on girls as young as 13 (a process TikTok-savvy surgeons jocularly call “Teetus Deletus”) – who later regretted this hasty, irreversible process. And they felt an urgent mission to tell the world what GIDS was doing.
[That is a london Times bit of journalism despite the url]
and
Scottish doctors approved breast removal for 51 trans teenagers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-doctors-approved-breast-removal-for-51-trans-teenagers-qvkmz8r2c
OK not children by local standards, but under 18 in all cases
And puberty blockers from age 11 at the Tavistock. Listen to Keira Bell speak to understand how potent these are. She has detransitioned, but her voice hasn't.
And so on.
This is not new knowledge. Whistleblowers have been raising these issues for years. And yet on the Tavistock ploughed. It preferred to listen to the founder of Mermaids, a woman with no medical qualifications whatsoever, than to its own expert professionals, many of whom it drove out.
I have encountered Foucault in non medical, historical/classical contexts, and judged him to be an arse and a windbag.
Whatever is done should be based on proper scientific research not on what lobby groups demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Dutch_general_election#Vote_share
I don't think I've ever seen a national opinion poll with the leading party as low as 14%.
I said children were not getting surgery, you respond with an individual who received surgery at age 20.
Puberty blockers have been given to children to delay puberty for decades. The clue is in the name.
What is not well characterised is the consequences of delaying puberty indefinitely. Hence the clinical trial, which I described.
?
"Views on underage sex and pedophilia
Foucault argued that children could give sexual consent.[185] In 1977, along with Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, and other intellectuals, Foucault signed a petition to the French parliament calling for the decriminalization of all "consensual" sexual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen, the age of consent in France.[186][187]"
(I agree that the theory has a lot of unpleasant implications, but think it better to face the evidence that it is, in its modern form, broadly correct.)
"At one freshers’ week, Lib Dem members including Alan Renwick, a friend of Truss who is now an academic on constitutional affairs, were decorating a stall and Truss, then a believer in cannabis legalisation, had a particular vision of how it should look. “She wanted the whole stall to be covered with these posters saying: ‘Free the Weed’, so I was scurrying around after Liz, trying to take these down again and put up a variety of different messages rather than just having this one message all over the stall,” Renwick told BBC Radio 4. She was putting them up again just as quickly."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/30/liz-truss-profile-ambition-charm-thick-skin-thatcher
I am surprised you are recommending them though. Gender GP are the Webberleys, are they not? Both of whom have been were suspended from practising in the U.K., no? For serious misconduct in the case of 3 young patients in the case of Helen Webberley. She was previously convicted of practising without the appropriate registration. They moved their practice to Spain and one of them recently said that no matter what the Cass Report says they will continue to prescribe hormones to children.