Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though.
It's a shame we can't have sensible discussions in this issue and it has to be all or nothing.
And your first line was supposed to be an effort at a 'sensible discussion', was it?
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule".
And violating that safeguarding that was done for women by allowing men into those spaces, whether those men by genuinely trans women or falsely "trans women" who want to abuse women, violates their safety.
We need to provide appropriate safeguarding for trans women, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and violating female-only safe spaces.
"Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule"."
I did not say violence against women is minuscule; quite the opposite.
And the rest of your post proves my point.
How does it prove your point?
Women want women-only safe spaces to be available to them, especially after potentially being abused by an abusive man.
Sturgeon is against that.
Why should there not be women-only safe spaces?
Trans women should have support, absolutely, and be protected and given their own safeguarding too but it should come at the cost of breaking safeguarding for real women.
I used 'miniscule' in relation to violence by trans people. (To be clear, I wrote: "The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule".) Which it is.
You then changed that to infer that I was saying that violence towards women by *all* people was miniscule.
That's a drastic difference, and something I did not say.
No I did not infer that.
I said that because violence against women is not miniscule is why we need women only safe spaces. That is an important principle of safeguarding for women.
Trans people should have their own concerns, of course, but abolishing women-only safe spaces harms women's safety.
We need to treat trans people with respect, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater by preventing women from having women-only safe spaces.
Women-only safe spaces would exist with transwomen being allowed in, what with transwomen being women. The issue are abusive people allowed in these spaces, surely? If you had a lesbian couple, where a woman was being abused by their female partner, you wouldn't allow the abusive partner into the space because they are still a woman. So abusive behaviour is already a criteria to allow entrance. If a transwoman is also an abuser, of course they shouldn't be allowed in those spaces, but if a transwoman who is a victim of abuse needs to use a shelter then there is no reason that they shouldn't be in a womans only shelter.
A pre-op transwoman is sexually male, not female.
Calling her by a girl's name and using her preferred pronoun is fine, but she is not actually a woman. So we can call her a her, but not let her in women's sport or women's safe spaces.
Sex matters as much as gender.
Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy not a woman anymore, if removal of these organs is what dictates ones sex? Woman who have had breast cancer and had mammectomies? This is an obviously absurd position, as is the idea that only post-op transwomen are women in a way pre-op transwomen aren't.
How should shelters check if a woman is trans or not, or has had the operation? Should every woman who comes into a shelter be forced to undergo an examination, to show documentation, or just the ones who look too manish?
It doesn't make sense socially, transwomen are treated by society very much like women, subject to misogyny and misogynistic violence, and it doesn't make sense practically - there is no way to police this without also subject ciswomen to the same policing because (no matter what people say) actually you usually can't "just tell"...
A woman who's had a hysterectomy is still a woman. Someone born male who is trans, is not a real or as you call it "cis" woman.
Its fine to treat transwomen very much like women, without saying they actually are women.
If a shelter wants to provide shelter for transwomen, that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden. If a shelter wants to provide shelter for women only, that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden.
If a shelter wants to provide a space for women only, and a separate space mixed between women and transwomen, then that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden.
Safe spaces for women should be able to exist and as much as we may want to treat trans women like real women much of the time, there are times to acknowledge that they are not real women, and real women should be able to have their own safe spaces if that makes them feel safe.
Outside of a conversation about what a woman is; what you are describing is, as far as I understand things, the current state of affairs. You just felt the need to conflate transwomen with abusive men right at top of the conversation for no real reason.
No I did not!
I said that women need women's only spaces because the risks that they are under.
Transwomen should be given what support they need, but they are not women, and if women's only spaces exclude them then that should be entirely legal.
EDIT: As far as I understand the argument here is that Sturgeon wants to change what you say is "the current state of affairs", which would put more barriers up against women-only safe spaces.
The first thing you said was: "Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though. " I think it is clear what you were suggesting there.
That diminishing safeguarding and opening up safe spaces to trans women allows abusive men to exploit that weakness, and abuse that. That loosening protections and safeguarding allows abusive men to get into those spaces, not just trans women.
If you can suggest a way to make women's-only safe spaces be open to trans women but not abusive men then I'm all ears. Otherwise what you're doing is abolishing women's-only safe spaces, because abusive men are now able to enter them as easily as trans women can.
The same way you would stop an abusive woman from entering a shelter - by noting if they have been accused of or acting out abusive behaviour. Same-sex abuse happens as well, so there are already procedures in place for dealing with an abusive woman; an abusive transwoman or an abusive man who tried to identify as a transwoman to enter such a space would go through the same.
It ought to be entirely unsurprising that women’s refuges are very, very used to having to vet carefully anyone trying to gain access to them, because they are a target for abusers wanting either to re-establish contact with their victims or to gain access to vulnerable women.
The question of whether they admit trans women or not is entirely orthogonal to the the problem of excluding predatory men (and the occasional woman) from these spaces. Arguing about it is a great way to implicitly associate transness with sexual deviance & predatory behaviour though, which I personally suspect is the main goal. Look at the way the right has jumped on the idea of painting LGBT organsations and individuals as “groomers” all of a sudden - it’s all part of the same pattern.
Whether to admit trans women is not remotely orthoganal to the problem of excluding predatory men.
Women's-only refuges only allowing women means predatory men can not get in. If they start allowing men who claim to self-ID as trans, whether they be genuinely trans, or merely predators, then they cease to be a women's-only refuge.
Now you may say there's no valid reason for a women's-only refuge to exist. Plenty of women would disagree with you and think they exist for very good reasons.
How do womens only refuges know if a woman is what you consider a "real" woman? They ask them to self ID. Do you want everyone to have to go through an examination to check they are what you consider a "real" woman? How else would you police a womens only shelter for what you consider "real" women? If a butch woman turned up and refused to have an examination because someone thought she was a man, should a shelter refuse her service? Should shelters turn away women because they think they're too manish?
For me it is up to shelters to have whatever safeguards they feel is appropriate. They could choose to be a shelter open to men and women, so trans isn't an issue, or choose to be a women's-only shelter, or choose to be a women's shelter that allows trans women as well as women.
In issues like sport, where women need their own space because of biology, then biology should mean trans women are not permitted to play those sports competitively.
Trans people should be treated with love, dignity and respect as much as possible, why is that not enough? Why must all women's only spaces be thrown out on top of that?
Why is it when I give an answer you don't like, I'm saying womens only shelters don't exist, but you're allowed to fall back to "it's up to shelters to have whatever safeguarding they want"? Because the position of shelters is that of self ID, because it won't likely impact women in shelters, and anything else is intrusive:
Why won't you say what you think shelters should do if they don't know if a woman is what you consider a "real" woman? Why do I have to deal with your hypothetical "man faking being a woman" to be abusive, but you don't have to consider my scenario of "women being harassed to make sure they aren't trans"?
It's completely disingenuous.
Because I don't understand what you're talking about.
Not all women's only shelters have self-ID, that's not correct, and if they were why would the law be getting changed? You keep talking about gender, but gender isn't the only thing that exists, sex exists too, and single-sex spaces and single-sex competitions have long been real and I'm afraid trans women are not the same sex as women are.
Where sex doesn't matter, then its fine to go off gender instead, as much as you want, but when it comes to single-sex issues then it is a question of sex, not a question of gender.
If a shelter wants to be mixed-sex then that is their choice. If a shelter does not want to be mixed-sex, then that should be its choice too.
As for if they don't know, well that's up to them to handle, using whatever procedures they deem to be appropriate, which might include actual ID as oppose to self-ID.
There is no particular reason to concede that gender is a thing which exists, other than as a grammatical concept. It might do, but the case has to be made.
Labour leads by 28%, tied largest lead for them that we've EVER recorded.
Westminster Voting Intention (5 Oct.):
Labour 52% (–) Conservative 24% (–) Liberal Democrat 10% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 4% (-1) Reform UK 3% (–) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 2 Oct.
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-emai…
I would have said that the Conservative core vote was around 30-32%. That they are polling well below that must surely be concerning someone.
When the GE does come, it is unlikely that CON will get less than 32%. I believe that even in 1997 CON got 31%. Not sure that they have got less than that since 1832 although I am sure someone will correct me if they did!
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
What a silly little man you are. The answer is that we don't much like rigged referendums from either a political or a betting POV. No one is going to hit you with a big stick but your own employers are quite likely to enlist you to die of cold this winter in one of the areas you mention, if you don't raise your game.
I had assumed this new account was another Russian troll farm labourer but some odd and inconsistent spellings ("Kharkov" = Russian, "Luhansk" = Ukrainian, "Zaporozhe" = ?) are either very clever or suggest someone not based in Russia. Though "British Tory" is another oddity.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
What a silly little man you are. The answer is that we don't much like rigged referendums from either a political or a betting POV. No one is going to hit you with a big stick but your own employers are quite likely to enlist you to die of cold this winter in one of the areas you mention, if you don't raise your game.
I had assumed this new account was another Russian troll farm labourer but some odd and inconsistent spellings ("Kharkov" = Russian, "Luhansk" = Ukrainian, "Zaporozhe" = ?) are either very clever or suggest someone not based in Russia. Though "British Tory" is another oddity.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
Or you could just look at the 2019 Presidential Election results, where they all went overwhelmingly for Zelensky.
What were the turnouts in a) Crimea, b) the two independent territories, c) Zaporozhe and Kherson?
And why do you think preferring Zelensky to Poroshenko indicated in 2019 in any of the territories, among the numbers who voted, a desire for the territory of registration to rejoin the Ukraine (a and b), or to remain in the Ukraine (c), presumably unlike preferring Poroshenko to Zelensky?
As for the sentence about Putin and one people, Putin forms no part of what I am positing here. The relevant issue is what people in the five territories want - for their territory to be in Russia or for it to be in Ukraine.
Hmm. Re Biden's striking remarks about "Armageddon" last night:
"Perhaps the most troubling interpretation is that Biden’s most recent briefing from the intelligence community included something particularly ominous, and it was on Biden's mind last night."
- Russia needs to be convinced that America will not stand for the use of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. Biden is doing the “I can play that game too” strategy. - He is hinting his door is open - note his reference to the off ramp. - I suspect he has made the comments at a fundraiser rather than a formal event like a press conference so as not to provoke a battle of the announcements with Vlad.
I sometimes have my doubts over Biden’s lucidity but I am absolutely convinced that this was very much scripted.
As for how you read it: you can choose to be concerned or reassured. On one hand, it shows that he considers the situation serious enough that he needs to say it. That suggests there has to be SOME concern in Washington that Putin might actually consider tactical nukes. On the other hand, by setting out his stall he is confirming that he can play the deterrence game too - I.e, you don’t want to go there, there will be consequences. De-escalate.
I am not a fan of Biden but I think he (and/or his advisors) played that one quite well.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
The Principality of Kyiv was actually the heartland of East Slavic civilized culture, before the Mongols destroyed them. Muscovy were a bunch of collaborator traitors to their Slavic brothers, who oppressed them and took their money to give to their Mongolian overlords. They abandoned Kievan constitutional governance to adopt Mongol-style absolutist rule.
Yes, that was my point. Putin's argument could be used as a justification to expand the Ukrainian state.
It's time to get the figures out again, guys and gals:
"These crimes disproportionately affect women and girls, and the statistics show they are still all too common: estimates from the year ending March 2020 show around 1 in 5 women aged 16 to 74 are victims of sexual assault or attempted assault in their lifetime, over 27% of women aged 16 to 74 had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16, and 20% of women aged 16-74 had experienced stalking since the age of 16." (1)
So 1 in 5 women have been the victims of sexual or attempted sexual assaults in their lives, whilst 27% had suffered domestic abuse.
"Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) data for the year ending March 2020 shows that 1.8% of adults aged 16 to 74 (equivalent to 773,000 people) had been a victim of sexual assault in the last year; 2.9% of women and 0.7% of men. In the same year, there were an estimated 139,000 victims of rape (including attempts), 132,000 of whom were women." (2)
So nearly 3% of women (and 0.7% of men) have been victims of sexual assault in the last year.
This is just one type of violence; adding other non-sexual forms of abuse and assault and the figures skyrocket. This means one uncomfortable fact: unless you are a hermit, the chances are you know someone who has been sexually abused in their lifetime, or even has been abused in the last year. You almost certainly know someone who has suffered domestic abuse.
Yet it rarely gets talked about.
But there's an extension to this: you also probably know an abuser. I know it's uncomfortable to think that old Harry from the pub might hit his wife, or that sweet-mannered Mary at the office might slap and kick her husband, but they might, however sweet-natured they appear in public.
Yet the talk on here is about the threat posed by trans people. Because they're different. I'd have much more time for the anti-trans obsessives on here if they actually spoke out about general abuse against women, and general violence in society.
But all too often they do not.
Abuse and violence is ingrained in our society. It is all too common. That needs to change. And we will change it by being open and honest about it, not by ignoring it and pretend we do by pouring all the attention onto a minority.
But as I say, it's more deep-rooted than even 'violence towards women'. There's too much *general* violence in society, with abuses and victims been of any gender, colour, or background. And to confuse matters, victims can be abusers, sometimes of the same people.
Who doesn't think violence against women is abhorrent? Perhaps we should all signal our virtue on this subject a bit more, but I don't think it's fair to hold it against Rowling for being focussed on the trans debate.
I'm not trying to virtue signal (in fact, some might not see my position as particularly virtuous): I'm pointing out that by concentrating on this tiny (perhaps even mythical) danger from trans people, the major issues and threats get ignored.
And I'm suspicious of people opining about the grave threats to women from trans people, who *never* mention other violence against women, or even violence in general.
To summarise that, you are virtue signalling. Fuck off with the "perhaps even mythical," this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/ to take one example is as well evidenced as anything could be, so you see what you did there? You denied that a female rape victim was a rape victim because the truth of your virtue was more important than the truth of what was done to her. Well done, you must be very proud. Also, fuck off with your bossy equal airtime rules, are we not allowed to discuss any form of evil because it is less evil than all the other evil things? Can @kinabalu not address the Waitrose crisp pricing issue without a prefatory paragraph condemning the treatment of the uighurs, the Pol Pot regime and J Savile?
You were sort of vaguely pro gay lib in your twenties and that went down well, you think trans is just a reprise of an old favourite. Bit more complicated.
ha ha ha ha.
You are funny. I suggest you read some of my posts in the past to see how my views on this have been formed. (Hint: it is not as you suggest.)
Yawn, I am sure you really used to Live On The Edge, good for you. Also, I don't want to know abouti t.
you have also denied that women have raped, when they actually have been. because it suits your argument better. Difficult to imagine anything more disgustingly contemptible.
Yawn. I have not. If you actually questioned me properly on it, rather than go off on one of your boringly insult-laden rants (the same sort of thing that caused at least two other posters to leave PB), then I would tell you what I meant.
A little hint: if you want to insult someone, at least make it funny or amusing. And preferably have a kernel of accuracy. Your 'insults' are inaccurate, poorly aimed and diarrheal.
Nope. Fail. You have denied that a woman was raped, when actually she was, because it suits your sense of your own importance. All else is peripheral.
Oh lordy. When did I deny a woman was raped? As I said, if I thought you were actually interested in a proper response, then I'd give you one.
"because it suits your sense of your own importance."
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
Or you could just look at the 2019 Presidential Election results, where they all went overwhelmingly for Zelensky.
What were the turnouts in a) Crimea, b) the two independent territories, c) Zaporozhe and Kherson?
And why do you think preferring Zelensky to Poroshenko indicates in any of the territories, among the numbers who voted, a desire for the territory of registration to rejoin the Ukraine, or to remain in the Ukraine, presumably unlike preferring Poroshenko to Zelensky?
As for your first sentence about Putin and one people, Putin forms no part of what I am positing here. The relevant issue is what people in the five territories want - for their territory to be in Russia or for it to be in Ukraine.
When they got a chance to be part of Independent Ukraine they voted heavily for it in free elections (OK, a bit narrowly in Crimea, but massively elsewhere).
That poll has the LDs losing Richmond Park to Labour. Given the LDs were 48 points ahead of Labour there last time, I find it hard to take entirely seriously.
Looking at the graph, the movement feels too quick?
Rather like how Blair’s lead was wiped in the middle of his conference by a protest anger about lack of fuel. To know how serious this polling is, or not serious like a temporary protest spike, we need polling looking into exactly what the voters are protesting about.
All these raw numbers are meaningless, we need to know what is going on inside voters minds.
Isn't the very point of opinion polling to ascertain "what's going on in voters' minds"?
Mid term polling is unreliable, granted, but still...
The potential parallel with the fuel protests does seem pertinent. The Tories had an 8% lead at one point, but it didn't really represent voting intentions and Hague made no progress in the General Election.
That's a fair point... BUT. Here's the thing(s):
(1) The impact of higher energy prices (even with government support) will be felt for a long time
(2) Ditto the impact of higher interest rates
So the impact on peoples' pockets are likely to be more than transient.
Labour leads by 28%, tied largest lead for them that we've EVER recorded.
Westminster Voting Intention (5 Oct.):
Labour 52% (–) Conservative 24% (–) Liberal Democrat 10% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 4% (-1) Reform UK 3% (–) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 2 Oct.
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-emai…
I would have said that the Conservative core vote was around 30-32%. That they are polling well below that must surely be concerning someone.
When the GE does come, it is unlikely that CON will get less than 32%. I believe that even in 1997 CON got 31%. Not sure that they have got less than that since 1832 although I am sure someone will correct me if they did!
Cardiologist says my heart is now healthy again after the diet and exercise regime! Danger of cardiac arrest has passed completely, signs of inflammation gone and ectopic beats down to just 1%. Such a massive weight lifted with that news. Think I might drop Jen with my parents and go out for dinner and drinks with my wife
I am starting to wonder if the damage has been done and whether a unity candidate will even have much meaningful impact. The problem is that the unity candidates all have their own problems. Gove is broadly disliked. May is considered weak and wobbly. Wallace is anonymous to the general public. Rishi isn’t particularly popular (though may get some kudos simply for not being involved in this mess). I dunno. I just wonder if the shark has been jumped now.
The shark has deffo been jumped
The Tories are going to lose in 24. You can't come back from 30 point poll deficits
They should be focused on two things
1. Doing the difficult unpopular things, as that is best for the country, and they are going to lose anyway
2. Minimising their own defeat in 24 so they have a chance in 28-29
Trouble is those two things are probably in conflict
Not sure what they can do that is more unpopular than foisting Liz Truss on us.
Maybe they could euthanize all cats - to save the wild bird population.
And while they are at it, euthanize any single women with more than two.
Perhaps tell parents their kids will go to the school allocated to them by the nation's Sorting Hat. No appeals. End of.
Introduce rainbow-coloured passport covers.
Reintroduce national service for anyone between 16 and 32. To be undertaken in Ukraine - as part of our training swap.
In an email to Manchester United fans already allocated tickets for the game, the club said: “The announcement follows consultation between United, the Premier League and Chelsea after the Metropolitan Police proposed a reduction in our away allocation due to policing concerns.
“The police initially sought to cut our allocation from 2,994 to 1,500. We have strongly opposed any reduction and worked with Chelsea to present a range of mitigations to the local Safety Advisory Group, which we believe could have allowed the game to proceed safely with our full allocation of fans.
“Unfortunately, the police have continued to insist on a reduction. However, we have succeeded in increasing the allocation to 2,370.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
Or you could just look at the 2019 Presidential Election results, where they all went overwhelmingly for Zelensky.
What were the turnouts in a) Crimea, b) the two independent territories, c) Zaporozhe and Kherson?
And why do you think preferring Zelensky to Poroshenko indicated in 2019 in any of the territories, among the numbers who voted, a desire for the territory of registration to rejoin the Ukraine (a and b), or to remain in the Ukraine (c), presumably unlike preferring Poroshenko to Zelensky?
As for your first sentence about Putin and one people, Putin forms no part of what I am positing here. The relevant issue is what people in the five territories want - for their territory to be in Russia or for it to be in Ukraine.
Well, when they were last actually asked the figures for staying in Ukraine were:
Luhansk 83% Donetsk 84% Kharkiv 86% Kherson 90%.
Now it may have changed in the intervening 31 years but it would be a little surprising if it had changed by *that* much.
Which is why of course the Russians are going in for ethnic cleansing to try and change the numbers.
Cardiologist says my heart is now healthy again after the diet and exercise regime! Danger of cardiac arrest has passed completely, signs of inflammation gone and ectopic beats down to just 1%. Such a massive weight lifted with that news. Think I might drop Jen with my parents and go out for dinner and drinks with my wife
Cardiologist says my heart is now healthy again after the diet and exercise regime! Danger of cardiac arrest has passed completely, signs of inflammation gone and ectopic beats down to just 1%. Such a massive weight lifted with that news. Think I might drop Jen with my parents and go out for dinner and drinks with my wife
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
So that's your best reason for believing that people from each of the five territories mostly wish their territory to be in the Ukraine.
Cardiologist says my heart is now healthy again after the diet and exercise regime! Danger of cardiac arrest has passed completely, signs of inflammation gone and ectopic beats down to just 1%. Such a massive weight lifted with that news. Think I might drop Jen with my parents and go out for dinner and drinks with my wife
It's time to get the figures out again, guys and gals:
"These crimes disproportionately affect women and girls, and the statistics show they are still all too common: estimates from the year ending March 2020 show around 1 in 5 women aged 16 to 74 are victims of sexual assault or attempted assault in their lifetime, over 27% of women aged 16 to 74 had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16, and 20% of women aged 16-74 had experienced stalking since the age of 16." (1)
So 1 in 5 women have been the victims of sexual or attempted sexual assaults in their lives, whilst 27% had suffered domestic abuse.
"Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) data for the year ending March 2020 shows that 1.8% of adults aged 16 to 74 (equivalent to 773,000 people) had been a victim of sexual assault in the last year; 2.9% of women and 0.7% of men. In the same year, there were an estimated 139,000 victims of rape (including attempts), 132,000 of whom were women." (2)
So nearly 3% of women (and 0.7% of men) have been victims of sexual assault in the last year.
This is just one type of violence; adding other non-sexual forms of abuse and assault and the figures skyrocket. This means one uncomfortable fact: unless you are a hermit, the chances are you know someone who has been sexually abused in their lifetime, or even has been abused in the last year. You almost certainly know someone who has suffered domestic abuse.
Yet it rarely gets talked about.
But there's an extension to this: you also probably know an abuser. I know it's uncomfortable to think that old Harry from the pub might hit his wife, or that sweet-mannered Mary at the office might slap and kick her husband, but they might, however sweet-natured they appear in public.
Yet the talk on here is about the threat posed by trans people. Because they're different. I'd have much more time for the anti-trans obsessives on here if they actually spoke out about general abuse against women, and general violence in society.
But all too often they do not.
Abuse and violence is ingrained in our society. It is all too common. That needs to change. And we will change it by being open and honest about it, not by ignoring it and pretend we do by pouring all the attention onto a minority.
But as I say, it's more deep-rooted than even 'violence towards women'. There's too much *general* violence in society, with abuses and victims been of any gender, colour, or background. And to confuse matters, victims can be abusers, sometimes of the same people.
Who doesn't think violence against women is abhorrent? Perhaps we should all signal our virtue on this subject a bit more, but I don't think it's fair to hold it against Rowling for being focussed on the trans debate.
I'm not trying to virtue signal (in fact, some might not see my position as particularly virtuous): I'm pointing out that by concentrating on this tiny (perhaps even mythical) danger from trans people, the major issues and threats get ignored.
And I'm suspicious of people opining about the grave threats to women from trans people, who *never* mention other violence against women, or even violence in general.
To summarise that, you are virtue signalling. Fuck off with the "perhaps even mythical," this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/ to take one example is as well evidenced as anything could be, so you see what you did there? You denied that a female rape victim was a rape victim because the truth of your virtue was more important than the truth of what was done to her. Well done, you must be very proud. Also, fuck off with your bossy equal airtime rules, are we not allowed to discuss any form of evil because it is less evil than all the other evil things? Can @kinabalu not address the Waitrose crisp pricing issue without a prefatory paragraph condemning the treatment of the uighurs, the Pol Pot regime and J Savile?
You were sort of vaguely pro gay lib in your twenties and that went down well, you think trans is just a reprise of an old favourite. Bit more complicated.
ha ha ha ha.
You are funny. I suggest you read some of my posts in the past to see how my views on this have been formed. (Hint: it is not as you suggest.)
Yawn, I am sure you really used to Live On The Edge, good for you. Also, I don't want to know abouti t.
you have also denied that women have raped, when they actually have been. because it suits your argument better. Difficult to imagine anything more disgustingly contemptible.
Yawn. I have not. If you actually questioned me properly on it, rather than go off on one of your boringly insult-laden rants (the same sort of thing that caused at least two other posters to leave PB), then I would tell you what I meant.
A little hint: if you want to insult someone, at least make it funny or amusing. And preferably have a kernel of accuracy. Your 'insults' are inaccurate, poorly aimed and diarrheal.
Nope. Fail. You have denied that a woman was raped, when actually she was, because it suits your sense of your own importance. All else is peripheral.
Oh lordy. When did I deny a woman was raped? As I said, if I thought you were actually interested in a proper response, then I'd give you one.
"because it suits your sense of your own importance."
Heal thyself, physician.
"I'm not trying to virtue signal (in fact, some might not see my position as particularly virtuous): I'm pointing out that by concentrating on this tiny (perhaps even mythical) danger from trans people, the major issues and threats get ignored."
Cardiologist says my heart is now healthy again after the diet and exercise regime! Danger of cardiac arrest has passed completely, signs of inflammation gone and ectopic beats down to just 1%. Such a massive weight lifted with that news. Think I might drop Jen with my parents and go out for dinner and drinks with my wife
That is what you call a result! Well done to those advising you - and to you for following it.
Cardiologist says my heart is now healthy again after the diet and exercise regime! Danger of cardiac arrest has passed completely, signs of inflammation gone and ectopic beats down to just 1%. Such a massive weight lifted with that news. Think I might drop Jen with my parents and go out for dinner and drinks with my wife
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
So that's your best reason for believing that people from each of the five territories mostly wish their territory to be in the Ukraine.
Thanks for making that clear.
Piss off Russian troll.
They voted to be in Ukraine, when given the choice.
They've never voted otherwise.
Unless they vote, freely and democratically, to leave Ukraine its a non-issue. They haven't. No votes can occur while under military occupation.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
So that's your best reason for believing that people from each of the five territories mostly wish their territory to be in the Ukraine.
Thanks for making that clear.
Let's flip this. What is your reason for thinking that they want to be part of Russia? After all, they have spent most of the last seven months if not the last eight years trying to get rid of the Russians (something to do with them being a bunch of drunken torturing raping mass murdering lunatics, apparently).
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
The Principality of Kyiv was actually the heartland of East Slavic civilized culture, before the Mongols destroyed them. Muscovy were a bunch of collaborator traitors to their Slavic brothers, who oppressed them and took their money to give to their Mongolian overlords. They abandoned Kievan constitutional governance to adopt Mongol-style absolutist rule.
Yes, that was my point. Putin's argument could be used as a justification to expand the Ukrainian state.
The future of Ukraine will show the regions of Russia how much better it is to be free of Moscow rule. Cossackia in particular has been oppressed for most of its history.
Labour leads by 28%, tied largest lead for them that we've EVER recorded.
Westminster Voting Intention (5 Oct.):
Labour 52% (–) Conservative 24% (–) Liberal Democrat 10% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 4% (-1) Reform UK 3% (–) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 2 Oct.
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-emai…
I would have said that the Conservative core vote was around 30-32%. That they are polling well below that must surely be concerning someone.
When the GE does come, it is unlikely that CON will get less than 32%. I believe that even in 1997 CON got 31%. Not sure that they have got less than that since 1832 although I am sure someone will correct me if they did!
Why, specifically, have they lost you?
General incompetence, incoherent policies and specifically no idea how to bring CPI under control.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
Can you name any of these "fascist villages in the Home Counties"? Even one of them? I know it might be hard to find them from Yekaterinburg.
I withdraw the comment about the fascist Home Counties village. Let's not get sidetracked when warnings of nuclear war - or "Armageddon" to use the US president's word - are building.
Point at issue: what country do people from each of the five territories wish their territory to be in?
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
So that's your best reason for believing that people from each of the five territories mostly wish their territory to be in the Ukraine.
Thanks for making that clear.
Piss off Russian troll.
They voted to be in Ukraine, when given the choice.
They've never voted otherwise.
Unless they vote, freely and democratically, to leave Ukraine its a non-issue. They haven't. No votes can occur while under military occupation.
I strongly suspect our latest troll would vote for Zelenskyy - with an AK47 shoved up his left nostril.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
So that's your best reason for believing that people from each of the five territories mostly wish their territory to be in the Ukraine.
Thanks for making that clear.
Piss off Russian troll.
They voted to be in Ukraine, when given the choice.
They've never voted otherwise.
Unless they vote, freely and democratically, to leave Ukraine its a non-issue. They haven't. No votes can occur while under military occupation.
I strongly suspect our latest troll would vote for Zelenskyy - with an AK47 shoved up his left nostril.
Why would he vote for Zelensky only if Zelensky had an AK47 up his left nostril? Seems an odd campaigning tactic.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
Can you name any of these "fascist villages in the Home Counties"? Even one of them? I know it might be hard to find them from Yekaterinburg.
I withdraw the comment about the fascist Home Counties village. Let's not get sidetracked when warnings of nuclear war - or "Armageddon" to use the US president's word - are building.
Point at issue: what country do people from each of the five territories wish their territory to be in?
Back in January, did you have any reason to doubt that the people of Kherson wanted to remain part of Ukraine?
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
Labour leads by 28%, tied largest lead for them that we've EVER recorded.
Westminster Voting Intention (5 Oct.):
Labour 52% (–) Conservative 24% (–) Liberal Democrat 10% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 4% (-1) Reform UK 3% (–) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 2 Oct.
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-emai…
I would have said that the Conservative core vote was around 30-32%. That they are polling well below that must surely be concerning someone.
When the GE does come, it is unlikely that CON will get less than 32%. I believe that even in 1997 CON got 31%. Not sure that they have got less than that since 1832 although I am sure someone will correct me if they did!
But they will not be recruiting new votes as fast as their supporters drop off the other end (700k people die each year) I would expect the Conservatives to be losing 250k -300k core votes a year - just under 1% of the total vote each year - With 24% they are on 7.7m votes if turnout is the same as 2019.
Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though.
It's a shame we can't have sensible discussions in this issue and it has to be all or nothing.
And your first line was supposed to be an effort at a 'sensible discussion', was it?
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule".
And violating that safeguarding that was done for women by allowing men into those spaces, whether those men by genuinely trans women or falsely "trans women" who want to abuse women, violates their safety.
We need to provide appropriate safeguarding for trans women, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and violating female-only safe spaces.
"Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule"."
I did not say violence against women is minuscule; quite the opposite.
And the rest of your post proves my point.
How does it prove your point?
Women want women-only safe spaces to be available to them, especially after potentially being abused by an abusive man.
Sturgeon is against that.
Why should there not be women-only safe spaces?
Trans women should have support, absolutely, and be protected and given their own safeguarding too but it should come at the cost of breaking safeguarding for real women.
I used 'miniscule' in relation to violence by trans people. (To be clear, I wrote: "The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule".) Which it is.
You then changed that to infer that I was saying that violence towards women by *all* people was miniscule.
That's a drastic difference, and something I did not say.
No I did not infer that.
I said that because violence against women is not miniscule is why we need women only safe spaces. That is an important principle of safeguarding for women.
Trans people should have their own concerns, of course, but abolishing women-only safe spaces harms women's safety.
We need to treat trans people with respect, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater by preventing women from having women-only safe spaces.
Women-only safe spaces would exist with transwomen being allowed in, what with transwomen being women. The issue are abusive people allowed in these spaces, surely? If you had a lesbian couple, where a woman was being abused by their female partner, you wouldn't allow the abusive partner into the space because they are still a woman. So abusive behaviour is already a criteria to allow entrance. If a transwoman is also an abuser, of course they shouldn't be allowed in those spaces, but if a transwoman who is a victim of abuse needs to use a shelter then there is no reason that they shouldn't be in a womans only shelter.
A pre-op transwoman is sexually male, not female.
Calling her by a girl's name and using her preferred pronoun is fine, but she is not actually a woman. So we can call her a her, but not let her in women's sport or women's safe spaces.
Sex matters as much as gender.
Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy not a woman anymore, if removal of these organs is what dictates ones sex? Woman who have had breast cancer and had mammectomies? This is an obviously absurd position, as is the idea that only post-op transwomen are women in a way pre-op transwomen aren't.
How should shelters check if a woman is trans or not, or has had the operation? Should every woman who comes into a shelter be forced to undergo an examination, to show documentation, or just the ones who look too manish?
It doesn't make sense socially, transwomen are treated by society very much like women, subject to misogyny and misogynistic violence, and it doesn't make sense practically - there is no way to police this without also subject ciswomen to the same policing because (no matter what people say) actually you usually can't "just tell"...
A woman who's had a hysterectomy is still a woman. Someone born male who is trans, is not a real or as you call it "cis" woman.
Its fine to treat transwomen very much like women, without saying they actually are women.
If a shelter wants to provide shelter for transwomen, that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden. If a shelter wants to provide shelter for women only, that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden.
If a shelter wants to provide a space for women only, and a separate space mixed between women and transwomen, then that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden.
Safe spaces for women should be able to exist and as much as we may want to treat trans women like real women much of the time, there are times to acknowledge that they are not real women, and real women should be able to have their own safe spaces if that makes them feel safe.
Outside of a conversation about what a woman is; what you are describing is, as far as I understand things, the current state of affairs. You just felt the need to conflate transwomen with abusive men right at top of the conversation for no real reason.
No I did not!
I said that women need women's only spaces because the risks that they are under.
Transwomen should be given what support they need, but they are not women, and if women's only spaces exclude them then that should be entirely legal.
EDIT: As far as I understand the argument here is that Sturgeon wants to change what you say is "the current state of affairs", which would put more barriers up against women-only safe spaces.
The first thing you said was: "Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though. " I think it is clear what you were suggesting there.
That diminishing safeguarding and opening up safe spaces to trans women allows abusive men to exploit that weakness, and abuse that. That loosening protections and safeguarding allows abusive men to get into those spaces, not just trans women.
If you can suggest a way to make women's-only safe spaces be open to trans women but not abusive men then I'm all ears. Otherwise what you're doing is abolishing women's-only safe spaces, because abusive men are now able to enter them as easily as trans women can.
The same way you would stop an abusive woman from entering a shelter - by noting if they have been accused of or acting out abusive behaviour. Same-sex abuse happens as well, so there are already procedures in place for dealing with an abusive woman; an abusive transwoman or an abusive man who tried to identify as a transwoman to enter such a space would go through the same.
It ought to be entirely unsurprising that women’s refuges are very, very used to having to vet carefully anyone trying to gain access to them, because they are a target for abusers wanting either to re-establish contact with their victims or to gain access to vulnerable women.
The question of whether they admit trans women or not is entirely orthogonal to the the problem of excluding predatory men (and the occasional woman) from these spaces. Arguing about it is a great way to implicitly associate transness with sexual deviance & predatory behaviour though, which I personally suspect is the main goal. Look at the way the right has jumped on the idea of painting LGBT organsations and individuals as “groomers” all of a sudden - it’s all part of the same pattern.
Whether to admit trans women is not remotely orthoganal to the problem of excluding predatory men.
Women's-only refuges only allowing women means predatory men can not get in. If they start allowing men who claim to self-ID as trans, whether they be genuinely trans, or merely predators, then they cease to be a women's-only refuge.
Now you may say there's no valid reason for a women's-only refuge to exist. Plenty of women would disagree with you and think they exist for very good reasons.
How do womens only refuges know if a woman is what you consider a "real" woman? They ask them to self ID. Do you want everyone to have to go through an examination to check they are what you consider a "real" woman? How else would you police a womens only shelter for what you consider "real" women? If a butch woman turned up and refused to have an examination because someone thought she was a man, should a shelter refuse her service? Should shelters turn away women because they think they're too manish?
For me it is up to shelters to have whatever safeguards they feel is appropriate. They could choose to be a shelter open to men and women, so trans isn't an issue, or choose to be a women's-only shelter, or choose to be a women's shelter that allows trans women as well as women.
In issues like sport, where women need their own space because of biology, then biology should mean trans women are not permitted to play those sports competitively.
Trans people should be treated with love, dignity and respect as much as possible, why is that not enough? Why must all women's only spaces be thrown out on top of that?
Why is it when I give an answer you don't like, I'm saying womens only shelters don't exist, but you're allowed to fall back to "it's up to shelters to have whatever safeguarding they want"? Because the position of shelters is that of self ID, because it won't likely impact women in shelters, and anything else is intrusive:
Why won't you say what you think shelters should do if they don't know if a woman is what you consider a "real" woman? Why do I have to deal with your hypothetical "man faking being a woman" to be abusive, but you don't have to consider my scenario of "women being harassed to make sure they aren't trans"?
It's completely disingenuous.
Because I don't understand what you're talking about.
Not all women's only shelters have self-ID, that's not correct, and if they were why would the law be getting changed? You keep talking about gender, but gender isn't the only thing that exists, sex exists too, and single-sex spaces and single-sex competitions have long been real and I'm afraid trans women are not the same sex as women are.
Where sex doesn't matter, then its fine to go off gender instead, as much as you want, but when it comes to single-sex issues then it is a question of sex, not a question of gender.
If a shelter wants to be mixed-sex then that is their choice. If a shelter does not want to be mixed-sex, then that should be its choice too.
As for if they don't know, well that's up to them to handle, using whatever procedures they deem to be appropriate, which might include actual ID as oppose to self-ID.
There is no particular reason to concede that gender is a thing which exists, other than as a grammatical concept. It might do, but the case has to be made.
It's time to get the figures out again, guys and gals:
"These crimes disproportionately affect women and girls, and the statistics show they are still all too common: estimates from the year ending March 2020 show around 1 in 5 women aged 16 to 74 are victims of sexual assault or attempted assault in their lifetime, over 27% of women aged 16 to 74 had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16, and 20% of women aged 16-74 had experienced stalking since the age of 16." (1)
So 1 in 5 women have been the victims of sexual or attempted sexual assaults in their lives, whilst 27% had suffered domestic abuse.
"Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) data for the year ending March 2020 shows that 1.8% of adults aged 16 to 74 (equivalent to 773,000 people) had been a victim of sexual assault in the last year; 2.9% of women and 0.7% of men. In the same year, there were an estimated 139,000 victims of rape (including attempts), 132,000 of whom were women." (2)
So nearly 3% of women (and 0.7% of men) have been victims of sexual assault in the last year.
This is just one type of violence; adding other non-sexual forms of abuse and assault and the figures skyrocket. This means one uncomfortable fact: unless you are a hermit, the chances are you know someone who has been sexually abused in their lifetime, or even has been abused in the last year. You almost certainly know someone who has suffered domestic abuse.
Yet it rarely gets talked about.
But there's an extension to this: you also probably know an abuser. I know it's uncomfortable to think that old Harry from the pub might hit his wife, or that sweet-mannered Mary at the office might slap and kick her husband, but they might, however sweet-natured they appear in public.
Yet the talk on here is about the threat posed by trans people. Because they're different. I'd have much more time for the anti-trans obsessives on here if they actually spoke out about general abuse against women, and general violence in society.
But all too often they do not.
Abuse and violence is ingrained in our society. It is all too common. That needs to change. And we will change it by being open and honest about it, not by ignoring it and pretend we do by pouring all the attention onto a minority.
But as I say, it's more deep-rooted than even 'violence towards women'. There's too much *general* violence in society, with abuses and victims been of any gender, colour, or background. And to confuse matters, victims can be abusers, sometimes of the same people.
Who doesn't think violence against women is abhorrent? Perhaps we should all signal our virtue on this subject a bit more, but I don't think it's fair to hold it against Rowling for being focussed on the trans debate.
I'm not trying to virtue signal (in fact, some might not see my position as particularly virtuous): I'm pointing out that by concentrating on this tiny (perhaps even mythical) danger from trans people, the major issues and threats get ignored.
And I'm suspicious of people opining about the grave threats to women from trans people, who *never* mention other violence against women, or even violence in general.
To summarise that, you are virtue signalling. Fuck off with the "perhaps even mythical," this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/ to take one example is as well evidenced as anything could be, so you see what you did there? You denied that a female rape victim was a rape victim because the truth of your virtue was more important than the truth of what was done to her. Well done, you must be very proud. Also, fuck off with your bossy equal airtime rules, are we not allowed to discuss any form of evil because it is less evil than all the other evil things? Can @kinabalu not address the Waitrose crisp pricing issue without a prefatory paragraph condemning the treatment of the uighurs, the Pol Pot regime and J Savile?
You were sort of vaguely pro gay lib in your twenties and that went down well, you think trans is just a reprise of an old favourite. Bit more complicated.
ha ha ha ha.
You are funny. I suggest you read some of my posts in the past to see how my views on this have been formed. (Hint: it is not as you suggest.)
Yawn, I am sure you really used to Live On The Edge, good for you. Also, I don't want to know abouti t.
you have also denied that women have raped, when they actually have been. because it suits your argument better. Difficult to imagine anything more disgustingly contemptible.
Yawn. I have not. If you actually questioned me properly on it, rather than go off on one of your boringly insult-laden rants (the same sort of thing that caused at least two other posters to leave PB), then I would tell you what I meant.
A little hint: if you want to insult someone, at least make it funny or amusing. And preferably have a kernel of accuracy. Your 'insults' are inaccurate, poorly aimed and diarrheal.
Nope. Fail. You have denied that a woman was raped, when actually she was, because it suits your sense of your own importance. All else is peripheral.
Oh lordy. When did I deny a woman was raped? As I said, if I thought you were actually interested in a proper response, then I'd give you one.
"because it suits your sense of your own importance."
Heal thyself, physician.
"I'm not trying to virtue signal (in fact, some might not see my position as particularly virtuous): I'm pointing out that by concentrating on this tiny (perhaps even mythical) danger from trans people, the major issues and threats get ignored."
Stop wriggling.
Yes. But that is not "You have denied that a woman was raped", which anyway you mentioned the case *after* I said that. And from memory it was not in a toilet (but it's paywalled, so I cannot tell)
My 'mythical' point is this: so much of this 'discussion' is about a man going into a woman's toilet and raping them. The threat from this seems to have been raised to an almost mythical level, as though thousands of men are just waiting to do it. The discourse is totally out of proportion to the threat, particularly in relation to my previous comment about violence in society.
Mayor Eric Adams has declared a state of emergency to help respond to the city’s migrant crisis, which he told reporters Friday will cost the city $1 billion this fiscal year.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
Can you name any of these "fascist villages in the Home Counties"? Even one of them? I know it might be hard to find them from Yekaterinburg.
I withdraw the comment about the fascist Home Counties village. Let's not get sidetracked when warnings of nuclear war - or "Armageddon" to use the US president's word - are building.
Point at issue: what country do people from each of the five territories wish their territory to be in?
What caused you to consider them fascist in the first place? Have you even ever been to the Home Counties? Perhaps on a cathedral sighting trip?
I am starting to wonder if the damage has been done and whether a unity candidate will even have much meaningful impact. The problem is that the unity candidates all have their own problems. Gove is broadly disliked. May is considered weak and wobbly. Wallace is anonymous to the general public. Rishi isn’t particularly popular (though may get some kudos simply for not being involved in this mess). I dunno. I just wonder if the shark has been jumped now.
Probably a good idea to just have a General Election and get the pain over with now! The government have got no idea or sensible direction, time for a period in opposition and to redefine and move back to more credible CON values.
Keir doesn't scare people, some of the people in his team are less palatable and this will reduce the LAB vote but overall LAB doesn't look so scary now.
I'm still not voting LAB though, I'm not voting CON anymore but don't know who to vote for.
And a GE is always entertaining and interesting on here!
If the Tories had any sense, they would get in touch with OGH, ask for the contact details of those they have lost here and ask us "What is it going to take to get you guys back on side?"
Our list of demands would be challenging, but not impossible. Although, that bunker with no access to the outside world might get quite full quite quickly. As well as being Big Brother From Hell...
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
Saffron is a dye used by Hindu holy men.
Their symbol is a swastika.
Fascists use swastikas.
So Saffron Walden must be a fascist village.
My favourite thing about PB is how Russian trolls just get absolutely torn a new one. They are used to American websites where they can start furor and division very easily. They are not used to dealing with the British, a civilization older and more sophisticated than the Russians.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
Can you name any of these "fascist villages in the Home Counties"? Even one of them? I know it might be hard to find them from Yekaterinburg.
I withdraw the comment about the fascist Home Counties village. Let's not get sidetracked when warnings of nuclear war - or "Armageddon" to use the US president's word - are building.
Point at issue: what country do people from each of the five territories wish their territory to be in?
What caused you to consider them fascist in the first place? Have you even ever been to the Home Counties? Perhaps on a cathedral sighting trip?
Not that many good cathedrals in the Home Counties, oddly. Rochester and Canterbury, obviously, and St Alban's is rather impressive, but Guildford wouldn't win any awards and Chelmsford is a bit meh.
Not sure whether you count Southwark and St Paul's.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
Can you name any of these "fascist villages in the Home Counties"? Even one of them? I know it might be hard to find them from Yekaterinburg.
I withdraw the comment about the fascist Home Counties village. Let's not get sidetracked when warnings of nuclear war - or "Armageddon" to use the US president's word - are building.
Point at issue: what country do people from each of the five territories wish their territory to be in?
What caused you to consider them fascist in the first place? Have you even ever been to the Home Counties? Perhaps on a cathedral sighting trip?
He must have been shocked to see them openly flying the fascist flag.
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
You see, this is the tell. There are no fascist villages in the Home Counties. All the former fascists are now voting Lib Dem due to concerns about the 1000 houses earmarked for the village green in the Local Plan. Some of them are even writing letters to the Fringsley Advertiser about "Nazis in the planning department".
"Helped by a milder than expected winter that keeps heating costs down, inflation dips" -Unfortunately for the government a milder winter wont help the inflation figures as prices are now fixed for 2 years (at about double last year). Energy costs will not add to inflation in year 2.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
Saffron is a dye used by Hindu holy men.
Their symbol is a swastika.
Fascists use swastikas.
So Saffron Walden must be a fascist village.
Guilds are cartels that fix wages and prices to screw over the workers.
And most Fascist movements are called 'Forward' in some way.
Therefore, clearly, Guildford is also a fascist village. Except it's worse because it's a whole city!
Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though.
It's a shame we can't have sensible discussions in this issue and it has to be all or nothing.
And your first line was supposed to be an effort at a 'sensible discussion', was it?
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule".
And violating that safeguarding that was done for women by allowing men into those spaces, whether those men by genuinely trans women or falsely "trans women" who want to abuse women, violates their safety.
We need to provide appropriate safeguarding for trans women, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and violating female-only safe spaces.
"Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule"."
I did not say violence against women is minuscule; quite the opposite.
And the rest of your post proves my point.
How does it prove your point?
Women want women-only safe spaces to be available to them, especially after potentially being abused by an abusive man.
Sturgeon is against that.
Why should there not be women-only safe spaces?
Trans women should have support, absolutely, and be protected and given their own safeguarding too but it should come at the cost of breaking safeguarding for real women.
I used 'miniscule' in relation to violence by trans people. (To be clear, I wrote: "The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule".) Which it is.
You then changed that to infer that I was saying that violence towards women by *all* people was miniscule.
That's a drastic difference, and something I did not say.
No I did not infer that.
I said that because violence against women is not miniscule is why we need women only safe spaces. That is an important principle of safeguarding for women.
Trans people should have their own concerns, of course, but abolishing women-only safe spaces harms women's safety.
We need to treat trans people with respect, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater by preventing women from having women-only safe spaces.
Women-only safe spaces would exist with transwomen being allowed in, what with transwomen being women. The issue are abusive people allowed in these spaces, surely? If you had a lesbian couple, where a woman was being abused by their female partner, you wouldn't allow the abusive partner into the space because they are still a woman. So abusive behaviour is already a criteria to allow entrance. If a transwoman is also an abuser, of course they shouldn't be allowed in those spaces, but if a transwoman who is a victim of abuse needs to use a shelter then there is no reason that they shouldn't be in a womans only shelter.
A pre-op transwoman is sexually male, not female.
Calling her by a girl's name and using her preferred pronoun is fine, but she is not actually a woman. So we can call her a her, but not let her in women's sport or women's safe spaces.
Sex matters as much as gender.
Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy not a woman anymore, if removal of these organs is what dictates ones sex? Woman who have had breast cancer and had mammectomies? This is an obviously absurd position, as is the idea that only post-op transwomen are women in a way pre-op transwomen aren't.
How should shelters check if a woman is trans or not, or has had the operation? Should every woman who comes into a shelter be forced to undergo an examination, to show documentation, or just the ones who look too manish?
It doesn't make sense socially, transwomen are treated by society very much like women, subject to misogyny and misogynistic violence, and it doesn't make sense practically - there is no way to police this without also subject ciswomen to the same policing because (no matter what people say) actually you usually can't "just tell"...
A woman who's had a hysterectomy is still a woman. Someone born male who is trans, is not a real or as you call it "cis" woman.
Its fine to treat transwomen very much like women, without saying they actually are women.
If a shelter wants to provide shelter for transwomen, that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden. If a shelter wants to provide shelter for women only, that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden.
If a shelter wants to provide a space for women only, and a separate space mixed between women and transwomen, then that should be their choice, it shouldn't be forbidden.
Safe spaces for women should be able to exist and as much as we may want to treat trans women like real women much of the time, there are times to acknowledge that they are not real women, and real women should be able to have their own safe spaces if that makes them feel safe.
Outside of a conversation about what a woman is; what you are describing is, as far as I understand things, the current state of affairs. You just felt the need to conflate transwomen with abusive men right at top of the conversation for no real reason.
No I did not!
I said that women need women's only spaces because the risks that they are under.
Transwomen should be given what support they need, but they are not women, and if women's only spaces exclude them then that should be entirely legal.
EDIT: As far as I understand the argument here is that Sturgeon wants to change what you say is "the current state of affairs", which would put more barriers up against women-only safe spaces.
The first thing you said was: "Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though. " I think it is clear what you were suggesting there.
That diminishing safeguarding and opening up safe spaces to trans women allows abusive men to exploit that weakness, and abuse that. That loosening protections and safeguarding allows abusive men to get into those spaces, not just trans women.
If you can suggest a way to make women's-only safe spaces be open to trans women but not abusive men then I'm all ears. Otherwise what you're doing is abolishing women's-only safe spaces, because abusive men are now able to enter them as easily as trans women can.
The same way you would stop an abusive woman from entering a shelter - by noting if they have been accused of or acting out abusive behaviour. Same-sex abuse happens as well, so there are already procedures in place for dealing with an abusive woman; an abusive transwoman or an abusive man who tried to identify as a transwoman to enter such a space would go through the same.
It ought to be entirely unsurprising that women’s refuges are very, very used to having to vet carefully anyone trying to gain access to them, because they are a target for abusers wanting either to re-establish contact with their victims or to gain access to vulnerable women.
The question of whether they admit trans women or not is entirely orthogonal to the the problem of excluding predatory men (and the occasional woman) from these spaces. Arguing about it is a great way to implicitly associate transness with sexual deviance & predatory behaviour though, which I personally suspect is the main goal. Look at the way the right has jumped on the idea of painting LGBT organsations and individuals as “groomers” all of a sudden - it’s all part of the same pattern.
Whether to admit trans women is not remotely orthoganal to the problem of excluding predatory men.
Women's-only refuges only allowing women means predatory men can not get in. If they start allowing men who claim to self-ID as trans, whether they be genuinely trans, or merely predators, then they cease to be a women's-only refuge.
Now you may say there's no valid reason for a women's-only refuge to exist. Plenty of women would disagree with you and think they exist for very good reasons.
How do womens only refuges know if a woman is what you consider a "real" woman? They ask them to self ID. Do you want everyone to have to go through an examination to check they are what you consider a "real" woman? How else would you police a womens only shelter for what you consider "real" women? If a butch woman turned up and refused to have an examination because someone thought she was a man, should a shelter refuse her service? Should shelters turn away women because they think they're too manish?
For me it is up to shelters to have whatever safeguards they feel is appropriate. They could choose to be a shelter open to men and women, so trans isn't an issue, or choose to be a women's-only shelter, or choose to be a women's shelter that allows trans women as well as women.
In issues like sport, where women need their own space because of biology, then biology should mean trans women are not permitted to play those sports competitively.
Trans people should be treated with love, dignity and respect as much as possible, why is that not enough? Why must all women's only spaces be thrown out on top of that?
Why is it when I give an answer you don't like, I'm saying womens only shelters don't exist, but you're allowed to fall back to "it's up to shelters to have whatever safeguarding they want"? Because the position of shelters is that of self ID, because it won't likely impact women in shelters, and anything else is intrusive:
Why won't you say what you think shelters should do if they don't know if a woman is what you consider a "real" woman? Why do I have to deal with your hypothetical "man faking being a woman" to be abusive, but you don't have to consider my scenario of "women being harassed to make sure they aren't trans"?
It's completely disingenuous.
Because I don't understand what you're talking about.
Not all women's only shelters have self-ID, that's not correct, and if they were why would the law be getting changed? You keep talking about gender, but gender isn't the only thing that exists, sex exists too, and single-sex spaces and single-sex competitions have long been real and I'm afraid trans women are not the same sex as women are.
Where sex doesn't matter, then its fine to go off gender instead, as much as you want, but when it comes to single-sex issues then it is a question of sex, not a question of gender.
If a shelter wants to be mixed-sex then that is their choice. If a shelter does not want to be mixed-sex, then that should be its choice too.
As for if they don't know, well that's up to them to handle, using whatever procedures they deem to be appropriate, which might include actual ID as oppose to self-ID.
There is no particular reason to concede that gender is a thing which exists, other than as a grammatical concept. It might do, but the case has to be made.
Women XX Blokes XY
That is not completely true. There is a small proportion of people (but a large number in absolute terms) who are female but XY or male but XXY ... etc.
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 26% (-3) Lab 51% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (-) Other 12% (-2) Fieldwork: 6 - 7 October 2022 Sample: 1,034 GB adults (Changes from 27 - 29 September 2022) https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1578408434537463808/photo/1
Does the Labour Left have anyone with any intelligence or thinking except for John McDonnell? They all seem thick as mince
Appearances can be perceptive.
But John McDonnell is undoubtedly a wickedly smart and actually very tactical man, if you've read Left Out you'd know that. He is almost entirely responsible for Corbyn's successes.
Nobody else comes close to him, I hope he stays in politics only because there is something there to argue with.
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 26% (-3) Lab 51% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (-) Other 12% (-2) Fieldwork: 6 - 7 October 2022 Sample: 1,034 GB adults (Changes from 27 - 29 September 2022) https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1578408434537463808/photo/1
Another 50 pointer for Labour. What was the highest Blair ever polled? 60%?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
You see, this is the tell. There are no fascist villages in the Home Counties. All the former fascists are now voting Lib Dem due to concerns about the 1000 houses earmarked for the village green in the Local Plan. Some of them are even writing letters to the Fringsley Advertiser about "Nazis in the planning department".
According to that data, German exports to the UK are down 12% and UK exports to Germany are up 2%. If you care about the balance of trade, that's very good news, isn't it?
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 26% (-3) Lab 51% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (-) Other 12% (-2) Fieldwork: 6 - 7 October 2022 Sample: 1,034 GB adults (Changes from 27 - 29 September 2022) https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1578408434537463808/photo/1
Another 50 pointer for Labour. What was the highest Blair ever polled? 60%?
His personal approval rating reached 93% in September 1997, but the highest I remember Labour as a whole polling was 63% in November 1997.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
Or you could just look at the 2019 Presidential Election results, where they all went overwhelmingly for Zelensky.
What were the turnouts in a) Crimea, b) the two independent territories, c) Zaporozhe and Kherson?
And why do you think preferring Zelensky to Poroshenko indicated in 2019 in any of the territories, among the numbers who voted, a desire for the territory of registration to rejoin the Ukraine (a and b), or to remain in the Ukraine (c), presumably unlike preferring Poroshenko to Zelensky?
As for the sentence about Putin and one people, Putin forms no part of what I am positing here. The relevant issue is what people in the five territories want - for their territory to be in Russia or for it to be in Ukraine.
In the only free and fair vote, in 1991, voters in all five regions voted to be part of an independent Ukraine.
The evidence we have from journalists reporting in Ukraine during this war is that people who were sympathetic towards Russia, and at least wanted closer relations with Russia than with the EU, have been turned strongly against Russia by the experience of occupation since 2014, and the Feb 24th invasion. In the four Oblasts I doubt that you would get more than 20% voting for Union with Russia in a free and fair vote. Crimea, probably a bit closer, but complicated by the large numbers of Russians who have moved there since the annexation.
So this issue you raise is not particularly relevant, because it's not seriously in doubt. The issue is how best to defeat Russia as quickly as possible and with minimal loss of innocent life.
Can see at least ONE reason why aspirational Young(ish) Conservatives and (Dis)Unionist may well be supportive of putting AND keeping Liz Truss at the top of the Greasy Pole that is Thorny Island (aka Westminster):
Ever-expanding opportunities for career advancement, as on average one minister per month (at least) can expect to be sacked for some reason, ranging from leaking adverse comments re: PM's dress sense, to carnal knowledge of a hedgehog.
My guess is that alleged offenses of latest ex-minister fall somewhere within this spectrum?
BTW (also FYI, old school "Thorney Island" is perfect moniker for duration of current premiership.
I'm not sure that's as big of a deal as you think, it's German car makers suffering from the EU not resolving trade and customs issues. UK exports to Germany are up.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
If you accept Putin's premise that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, then why shouldn't they want to be part of a state centred on Kyiv?
Or you could just look at the 2019 Presidential Election results, where they all went overwhelmingly for Zelensky.
What were the turnouts in a) Crimea, b) the two independent territories, c) Zaporozhe and Kherson?
And why do you think preferring Zelensky to Poroshenko indicated in 2019 in any of the territories, among the numbers who voted, a desire for the territory of registration to rejoin the Ukraine (a and b), or to remain in the Ukraine (c), presumably unlike preferring Poroshenko to Zelensky?
As for the sentence about Putin and one people, Putin forms no part of what I am positing here. The relevant issue is what people in the five territories want - for their territory to be in Russia or for it to be in Ukraine.
In the only free and fair vote, in 1991, voters in all five regions voted to be part of an independent Ukraine.
The evidence we have from journalists reporting in Ukraine during this war is that people who were sympathetic towards Russia, and at least wanted closer relations with Russia than with the EU, have been turned strongly against Russia by the experience of occupation since 2014, and the Feb 24th invasion. In the four Oblasts I doubt that you would get more than 20% voting for Union with Russia in a free and fair vote. Crimea, probably a bit closer, but complicated by the large numbers of Russians who have moved there since the annexation.
So this issue you raise is not particularly relevant, because it's not seriously in doubt. The issue is how best to defeat Russia as quickly as possible and with minimal loss of innocent life.
Given the number of Russians currently leaving Russia, it's not entirely clear that anyone at all is particularly keen to be in Russia.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
Comments
And why do you think preferring Zelensky to Poroshenko indicated in 2019 in any of the territories, among the numbers who voted, a desire for the territory of registration to rejoin the Ukraine (a and b), or to remain in the Ukraine (c), presumably unlike preferring Poroshenko to Zelensky?
As for the sentence about Putin and one people, Putin forms no part of what I am positing here. The relevant issue is what people in the five territories want - for their territory to be in Russia or for it to be in Ukraine.
As to why he said them:
- Russia needs to be convinced that America will not stand for the use of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. Biden is doing the “I can play that game too” strategy.
- He is hinting his door is open - note his reference to the off ramp.
- I suspect he has made the comments at a fundraiser rather than a formal event like a press conference so as not to provoke a battle of the announcements with Vlad.
I sometimes have my doubts over Biden’s lucidity but I am absolutely convinced that this was very much scripted.
As for how you read it: you can choose to be concerned or reassured. On one hand, it shows that he considers the situation serious enough that he needs to say it. That suggests there has to be SOME concern in Washington that Putin might actually consider tactical nukes. On the other hand, by setting out his stall he is confirming that he can play the deterrence game too - I.e, you don’t want to go there, there will be consequences. De-escalate.
I am not a fan of Biden but I think he (and/or his advisors) played that one quite well.
"because it suits your sense of your own importance."
Heal thyself, physician.
(1) The impact of higher energy prices (even with government support) will be felt for a long time
(2) Ditto the impact of higher interest rates
So the impact on peoples' pockets are likely to be more than transient.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-63173096
The DCI Banks books were quite enjoyable and atmospheric (not that I've read the latest few...)
Maybe they could euthanize all cats - to save the wild bird population.
And while they are at it, euthanize any single women with more than two.
Perhaps tell parents their kids will go to the school allocated to them by the nation's Sorting Hat. No appeals. End of.
Introduce rainbow-coloured passport covers.
Reintroduce national service for anyone between 16 and 32. To be undertaken in Ukraine - as part of our training swap.
https://tinyurl.com/57mb43ym
In an email to Manchester United fans already allocated tickets for the game, the club said: “The announcement follows consultation between United, the Premier League and Chelsea after the Metropolitan Police proposed a reduction in our away allocation due to policing concerns.
“The police initially sought to cut our allocation from 2,994 to 1,500. We have strongly opposed any reduction and worked with Chelsea to present a range of mitigations to the local Safety Advisory Group, which we believe could have allowed the game to proceed safely with our full allocation of fans.
“Unfortunately, the police have continued to insist on a reduction. However, we have succeeded in increasing the allocation to 2,370.
Luhansk 83%
Donetsk 84%
Kharkiv 86%
Kherson 90%.
Now it may have changed in the intervening 31 years but it would be a little surprising if it had changed by *that* much.
Which is why of course the Russians are going in for ethnic cleansing to try and change the numbers.
Thanks for making that clear.
Definitely worth a celebration.
Stop wriggling.
They voted to be in Ukraine, when given the choice.
They've never voted otherwise.
Unless they vote, freely and democratically, to leave Ukraine its a non-issue. They haven't. No votes can occur while under military occupation.
Point at issue: what country do people from each of the five territories wish their territory to be in?
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
Two years ago my wife and I bought our first home. Since then it’s gained more in value than I’ve earned.
There is no solution to the housing crisis without falling house prices - if I personally lose out, fine.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1578334386642116609
Blokes XY
My 'mythical' point is this: so much of this 'discussion' is about a man going into a woman's toilet and raping them. The threat from this seems to have been raised to an almost mythical level, as though thousands of men are just waiting to do it. The discourse is totally out of proportion to the threat, particularly in relation to my previous comment about violence in society.
New York City’s mayor has declared a state of emergency over the influx of migrants seeking asylum
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1578403665827827712
Mayor Eric Adams has declared a state of emergency to help respond to the city’s migrant crisis, which he told reporters Friday will cost the city $1 billion this fiscal year.
Their symbol is a swastika.
Fascists use swastikas.
So Saffron Walden must be a fascist village.
But good news with Max and Horse.
Our list of demands would be challenging, but not impossible. Although, that bunker with no access to the outside world might get quite full quite quickly. As well as being Big Brother From Hell...
Not sure whether you count Southwark and St Paul's.
2) That's because most of them are.
"Helped by a milder than expected winter that keeps heating costs down, inflation dips" -Unfortunately for the government a milder winter wont help the inflation figures as prices are now fixed for 2 years (at about double last year). Energy costs will not add to inflation in year 2.
And most Fascist movements are called 'Forward' in some way.
Therefore, clearly, Guildford is also a fascist village. Except it's worse because it's a whole city!
Labour lead is twenty-five points in latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 26% (-3)
Lab 51% (+3)
Lib Dem 9% (-)
Other 12% (-2)
Fieldwork: 6 - 7 October 2022
Sample: 1,034 GB adults
(Changes from 27 - 29 September 2022) https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1578408434537463808/photo/1
Nobody else comes close to him, I hope he stays in politics only because there is something there to argue with.
#Brexit trade watch
Based on the latest German data, here is the current UK trade performance:
Jan-Aug 2022 vs Jan-Aug 2019
German exports 🇩🇪 to:
+16% total
+19% 🇪🇺 EU
+26% 🇺🇸 USA
+14% 🇨🇳 China
-12% 🇬🇧 UK
https://twitter.com/DennisNovy/status/1578378730312982532
The evidence we have from journalists reporting in Ukraine during this war is that people who were sympathetic towards Russia, and at least wanted closer relations with Russia than with the EU, have been turned strongly against Russia by the experience of occupation since 2014, and the Feb 24th invasion. In the four Oblasts I doubt that you would get more than 20% voting for Union with Russia in a free and fair vote. Crimea, probably a bit closer, but complicated by the large numbers of Russians who have moved there since the annexation.
So this issue you raise is not particularly relevant, because it's not seriously in doubt. The issue is how best to defeat Russia as quickly as possible and with minimal loss of innocent life.
Does that mean he's now CorrectHorseBattery4 ?
Ever-expanding opportunities for career advancement, as on average one minister per month (at least) can expect to be sacked for some reason, ranging from leaking adverse comments re: PM's dress sense, to carnal knowledge of a hedgehog.
My guess is that alleged offenses of latest ex-minister fall somewhere within this spectrum?
BTW (also FYI, old school "Thorney Island" is perfect moniker for duration of current premiership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorney_Island_(Westminster)
Astonishing to see LT doing something right.
When I was a kid, holy rollers used to holler, that the Peace Sign was really the Broken Cross = work of the Devil.
Connect the dot!
Otherwise, we'll have folk wibbling on even more than usual about The Beatles for the next 9 months.