Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The next cabinet minister to go – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Very few people wish to eliminate women's sport. I think how it is now - each sport finding its way to its own rules around this - is ok.
    No it simply isn't, because you can bet your house that a "sport" overall finding its way to its own rules will be a gross injustice to a very large minority or a majority of participants in that sport.

    This is quantifiable. I predict that no sport will vote for trans = real women by a majority greater than 55-45.
    It's impossible to please everybody on this tricky issue - but each sport is different so they need to look at it and come to their own view imo. I think that's better than something imposed.
    It's impossible to please everybody on the tricky issue whether homosexuality should be a crime. Each sport is not materially different for these purposes, that's like saying different rules should govern criminal liability for stealing Rugby club funds, and cricket club funds.
    That's not a tricky issue though. This one is because 2 things are in play and potentially at odds. The principles of Inclusion and Fairness.
    I don't think it's tricky at all, in sport fairness trumps inclusion very very heavily.
    And how that maps to the precise rules in each sport will vary.
    Always with the edge cases.

    If you were explaining the world to a artian visitor and he asked what sport meant, and you said Thing at which birth men tend to routinely outperform birth women, he would have a pretty good grasp of the extension of the term.
    Is Holly Doyle an edge case?
    Or Piggy French, for something closer, I imagine, to @Ishmael_Z's heart.
    Marsh now. Have hunted with the P------y with her sister!
  • kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
  • nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Off topic

    Have we done this yet?

    Shapps, Gove, Mercer, Raab and Barclay have each received £16,876 redundancy payments for their dismissal by Ms Truss. Despite being back in government six weeks later they remain entitled to the money. In all fairness to Shapps he is donating half to charity, while Gove and Raab would like to pay half back when they can afford to.

    Nice work boys!

    Presumably, giving ‘it’ to charity generates a 40% tax credit?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,865
    RunDeep said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    You do not understand the proposed law I am afraid.

    The changes are not limited to people who have gender dysphoria. They allow anyone at all over the age of 16 to get a GRC. There is no check on their reasons for doing so. That creates a huge loophole which will be exploited, as all loopholes are. The Scottish government was specifically asked to legislate to prevent English sex offenders who have to register on the sex offenders register from using this legislation to change their identity but declined to do so. There are significant cross-border consequences of this legislation which simply have not been addressed. Do some research on how DBS checks work in the case of those with a GRC to understand how dangerous such a loophole is. You might want to do some research on how trans identified men have the same pattern of offending as men. Self-ID does not change that. You might want to ask yourself whether it is wise to allow such men into womens' spaces without women being able to challenge that and wonder whether your claim that this change will not damage anyone else is justifiable.

    You might also want to do some research on how equal pay claims work and the use of comparators to understand why self-ID will undermine equal pay claims and the ability of women to take effective action against sex-based discrimination. Or you might listen to a former Chair of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips, on how self-ID for one protected characteristic will necessarily undermine the others. If a legal category can be opted into and out of at will with no independent verification then the legal rights dependent on that categorisation will necessarily be undermined and effectively eliminated. Self-ID for men is a sexist's dream as it will make it so much harder to deal with sex-based discrimination. The real question is why Sturgeon is pushing it despite all the polls in Scotland showing there is no support for its 3 main provisions and the fact that this legislation as crafted was not in her manifesto.

    Worst of all this legislation does nothing to address the main issue faced by people with gender dysphoria: the lack of high quality medical care and the delays in getting it. That would involve resources and hard work.
    Your first sentence is wrong. I do understand it. I just don't freight it with the implications and consequences that you do.
  • kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
  • .



    "Executive style homes" are better than no homes at all. And complaining about building homes "in the wrong location" (ie where people want to buy them, near communities and where jobs etc are) while ranting about new towns that nobody has been able to get going in decades.

    Get some new towns built, solve the housing crisis, then talk about further liberating migration, but your opposition to "executive style" homes while free movement because you don't want to pay more is pure hypocrisy.

    Executive houses are not better than no houses at all: apart from the issue of putting housing outside the price range of people who want/need smaller houses, they use up land that could be used for a wider variety of housing: monoculture is not good.
    Every strategic housing assessment always identifies a need for a mix of housing: social, affordable, flats, small houses, larger houses. And every government policy then guts the ability to provide this by removing the ability of councils to insist on it, enforce alternatives like financial contributions, or put other pressures on developers.
    Labour 1997-2010 weren't much good, but the absolute chaos and crisis in housing in this country is mostly directly attributable to Conservative policy up to 1997, and after 2010. As a party they've been absolutely bought (at a national level) by the large developers.
    If you want more homes of more variety then use up more land. But to say no development is better than any is preposterous.

    Besides which, there is a further fallacy in @RochdalePioneers logic of "we need more immigration to fill jobs, but don't build houses except in new towns". If people move to live in new towns, then there would need to be jobs in those new towns for them to work and they won't be available to work to fill vacancies that are extant in existing towns.

    If you want more people to fill jobs in existing towns, then you need more homes in those towns. Or the employer needs to pay a good enough wage to attract labour from the homes that are already available there. Saying "I need you to work here, but don't think about living here, go live somewhere else" is not a solution.
    It isn't just new towns, it is new communities on the edge of existing towns / cities. The problem with the Tories policy is that developers crush houses in everywhere. No new roads or schools or medical facilities because they don't have to pay for that or care what the impact is.

    Or, do as many councils have managed to do, lay out the whole development with a master plan. Make sure there is green space and roads and places to walk and cycle and school / NHS provision. You may not be interested in those things, but the rest of the country is.
  • kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    It is a lifetime bar, I was just abbreviating.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Very few people wish to eliminate women's sport. I think how it is now - each sport finding its way to its own rules around this - is ok.
    No it simply isn't, because you can bet your house that a "sport" overall finding its way to its own rules will be a gross injustice to a very large minority or a majority of participants in that sport.

    This is quantifiable. I predict that no sport will vote for trans = real women by a majority greater than 55-45.
    It's impossible to please everybody on this tricky issue - but each sport is different so they need to look at it and come to their own view imo. I think that's better than something imposed.
    It's impossible to please everybody on the tricky issue whether homosexuality should be a crime. Each sport is not materially different for these purposes, that's like saying different rules should govern criminal liability for stealing Rugby club funds, and cricket club funds.
    That's not a tricky issue though. This one is because 2 things are in play and potentially at odds. The principles of Inclusion and Fairness.
    Well, I know which trumps which in this context

    What pisses me off is the conversion of edge cases into battlegrounds. Say I establish a fund whose sole purpose is to be equally distributed to every person in the country whose childhood nickname was Twinky. I estimate that the payout will be about £1m per head. What happens next? Well, it's an easy claim to make and not easy to refute, and the payout is worth having even these days, so I immediately need a huge authentication and security op to expose and where appropriate prosecute false Twinky claimants. And this in the eyes of the woke makes me a rabid twinkyphobe, whereas everything I have done is hugely to the benefit of Twinkies.
    Agree on edge cases. Not a good basis for argument or for law-making.

    But as a matter of interest - Sports - which way do you jump then if you find it clearcut and not tricky?

    You ban by law trans women from all women's sport? Or you force by law all women's sport to include trans women?
    Here you go - all the edge cases etc dealt with :

    https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2022/06/19/525de003-51f4-47d3-8d5a-716dac5f77c7/FINA-INCLUSION-POLICY-AND-APPENDICES-FINAL-.pdf
    Thanks. But that's a chunky one. What's the upshot?
    It's effectively a transwomen in the women's category ban.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175
    edited October 2022

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916
    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    I don't think so. Scottish Parliament referred to as Holyrood, UK Parliament as Westminster, because, er, that's where they are located. No dog whistle involved at all, not to my ears anyway (not sure if I am a dog in this metaphor, I suppose I am).
  • kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    The rule is effectively, that if you are XY, you must have started gender affirming care before approximately 12, which is the point that most XY people exceed 2.5nm/L

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Testosterone_levels_in_males_and_females
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921
    Slim pickings on the local by-election front today. Just a Con defence in Derbyshire and a Lab defence in Sandwell. I expect Labour to win both.
  • nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    As always compromise is needed, and the DUP refuse to compromise. Does the entire community allow all its services and the GFA and peace be held hostage by a minority group? Whilst there has to be consensus, there can't practically be a veto whether that is exercised by the DUP or SF.

    What the government need to tell these orange-sash wazzocks is that in the new assembly to be elected, they can choose not to sit but the assembly will go on. At which point they will sit.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
  • Driver said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
    Huh? Who said welcome all-comers? We're supposed to have a needs-based migration system post-Brexit, but in practice the need is there and nobody is allowed to come to fill the jobs. Which shrinks the economy, tax revenues, drives spending cuts etc etc.

    The current policy is making us poorer.
    "Nobody is allowed to come"? Have you not seen the immigration statistics?
    Apologies. You are right. We have filled all the vacancies and we don't have a stack of industries screaming for more labour and being told "no".

    You can join Leon on the smart step. Meanwhile in the real world we need to find solutions that work.
    Go back 20 years and start building enough houses?
    We are where we are. I'm an advocate for new towns and whole community developments as most of the house building seems to be crowding in "executive style homes" that are the wrong design in the wrong location. No consideration for how people move about with roads at crush capacity and no space / money to expand them. Same with hospitals and schools. So build new. There is plenty of room out there to do so, despite the England Britain is full lie.
    "Executive style homes" are better than no homes at all. And complaining about building homes "in the wrong location" (ie where people want to buy them, near communities and where jobs etc are) while ranting about new towns that nobody has been able to get going in decades.

    Get some new towns built, solve the housing crisis, then talk about further liberating migration, but your opposition to "executive style" homes while supporting free movement because you don't want to pay more is pure hypocrisy.
    New towns aren't being built? My mate lives in the Hamptons, thats a whole southern section of Peterborough that didn't exist. New houses, roads, shops, schools, medical, the whole smash.

    Not your preferred solution of build homes on every field and park where everyone has to crush along the same already full roads and there are no new schools or hospitals.
    Where have I ever said build on parks? I have never said that!

    Building new suburbs of existing towns by the town sprawling outwards, is far better than squishing ever more stuff into the same, limited existing area.

    And presumably your new Hamptons etc will come with new jobs in the Hamptons to go with it. If you're saying don't build homes in Kettering as you want them built in Hampton instead, then don't complain that you can't fill vacancies in Kettering so we need immigration.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    The rule is effectively, that if you are XY, you must have started gender affirming care before approximately 12, which is the point that most XY people exceed 2.5nm/L

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Testosterone_levels_in_males_and_females
    Unintended consequences ahoy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,964

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    One of the mysteries of the modern world is why the English are so insecure. It is hard to pinpoint when the process started.
    It started around the time the Scots started trolling us....

    In your dreams!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    The rule is effectively, that if you are XY, you must have started gender affirming care before approximately 12, which is the point that most XY people exceed 2.5nm/L

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Testosterone_levels_in_males_and_females
    Interesting that the upper bound of natural female range for testosterone occurs with... newborns.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    I think you are hearing things in your doggy ears. Or to put it another way, how could she articulate her argument that Scotland shouldn't be governed by a UK-wide parliament in such a way that you don't hear it as "I hate the English"?
  • kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    A dog-whistle is something you say so that your supporters understand what you mean but the general listener doesn’t. What you’re talking about here is something where everybody understands what it means. So, not a dog-whistle.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,865
    edited October 2022

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    You will have lived 3 months as a woman and made a solemn legal declaration that you intend to so live the rest of your life.

    It'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent.
    Could I not make a solemn legal declaration that I intend to live peaceably, after having done so for three months, and then not be considered a violent threat to women?

    Obviously, it'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent
    Not sure what you're driving at. My sense is you view the whole concept of gender - and by logical inference "transgender" - as a bit of a nonsense.

    But in practice there ARE such people and so the questions are -

    Should they be legally recognized as such?
    What should the process be?
    Should some things still be determined by sex not gender?

    To which we have -

    Yes, say England and Scotland.
    Very hard says England, not so hard says Scotland.
    Yes, say England and Scotland. If there's a good reason for it.
    I think of my thinking as being old-fashioned feminism.

    As I understand the concept of gender, as a separate thing to sex, is to argue that gender is a social construct, and so many of the things that are thought of as inherent differences between the sexes - girls liking pink, women not understanding computers, men not being caring, etc - are in fact products of our society and can be changed, and the residual differences between women and men - average height, average body fat percentage, average muscle mass - are relatively minor and have no bearing on whether women can be lawyers, or men can be nurses.

    My understanding of the ideology of transgenderism is to turn this on its head. It's to say that gender is a fixed inherent identity that is more fundamental than physical sex. Rather than it being a social construct that we can transcend, it's a more important determinant of who you are. It exaggerates the importance of the gender differences that feminism earlier sought to minimise, even to the extent of making them more important than the biological differences.

    As an ideology I can't see it as anything other than a postmodernist catastrophe. On an individual level, because I don't see gender differences as that important it simply doesn't make any difference to me what gender identity someone has.

    As a man who has often felt uncomfortable with society's idea of what being a man represents the logic of the ideology is also a bit threatening. The implication is that if I don't fit into the gender stereotypes of what it means to be a man, then this implies I'm not a man, I'm something else. A woman, or someone without a gender, or a new gender altogether.

    I'd rather think that being a man can involve a wide variety of different behaviours, and behaving differently to the male stereotype doesn't make you any less a man. The transgender ideology says I'm not a real man.

    Edit: So I can't understand what you would mean to have someone's gender legally recognised. What possible legal effect could it have? The vast majority of the time it shouldn't matter, and when it matters it's sex that matters, not gender.
    Yes, that's what I thought your view was. Very clear. Agree with some of it. So where does that lead you on this? In theory it means you don't recognize "transgender" as being a meaningful thing and so there shouldn't be a transition process to go through at all. Would that be right? You'd like to see your view legislated into practice, ie so there's no such thing as "changing gender"?

    If so, what about the people who identify as such? What are you going to tell them?
    What I would make clear in legislation is that a record of someone's sex should refer to their biological sex, and this should only be compulsory where it is necessary (which is very rarely). I don't see any need for there to be a legal status of gender, so then there's no need to have a legal process for changing it. People should be free to act and present as whatever gender they choose.

    If a Daniel wants to become a Daniella, or a Mary become a Mark, then it makes no odds to me.

    Now, when it comes to people who are having hormone treatment, or surgery to modify their body, it all gets a lot more complicated and like Theseus's ship. And in to this category you have the set of people whose biology doesn't fit the XX and XY divide that applies to most people. Perhaps the best approach is to have a greater number of categories to reflect the full range of nuances involved. Not sure. If it matters then probably all the detail matters.

    But I think it's best to be clearer that this is a question of transsexualism and not transgenderism. The thoughts and ideas in people's head have no business having legal effect. We do not make windows into people's souls.

    Insofar as we give a damn, what we give a damn about is the physical reality.
    Ok, so you want "gender" to disappear as a meaningful concept and therefore "trans" too - since you can't change something that doesn't exist. I understand your thinking but I don't see this as a practical way forward.

    (anyway, sorry, was wanting to develop a bit more with you and various but jabs await)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    carnforth said:

    Facebook shares pre-market going for $100, compared with $345 one year ago. Not sure anyone except Zuckerburg thinks spendings billions on the metaverse will pay off.

    I'm old enough to remember when the BBC inexplicably hyped "Second Life".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:



    "Executive style homes" are better than no homes at all. And complaining about building homes "in the wrong location" (ie where people want to buy them, near communities and where jobs etc are) while ranting about new towns that nobody has been able to get going in decades.

    Get some new towns built, solve the housing crisis, then talk about further liberating migration, but your opposition to "executive style" homes while free movement because you don't want to pay more is pure hypocrisy.

    Executive houses are not better than no houses at all: apart from the issue of putting housing outside the price range of people who want/need smaller houses, they use up land that could be used for a wider variety of housing: monoculture is not good.
    Every strategic housing assessment always identifies a need for a mix of housing: social, affordable, flats, small houses, larger houses. And every government policy then guts the ability to provide this by removing the ability of councils to insist on it, enforce alternatives like financial contributions, or put other pressures on developers.
    Labour 1997-2010 weren't much good, but the absolute chaos and crisis in housing in this country is mostly directly attributable to Conservative policy up to 1997, and after 2010. As a party they've been absolutely bought (at a national level) by the large developers.
    The executive houses are all pretty small, the marketing fluff makes them all look bigger than they are but the truth is they're barely breaking 80 m^2 for a 3 bed I think.
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/02/rabbit-hutch-homes-should-be-thing-of-the-past-say-architects

    These new builds really aren't "big houses"
    That is a very old article based on even older data. Though, yes, they aren't "big houses". They do tend to make more efficient use of space, however.

    AIUI we (England - I believe the issue is devolved) now have recommended space standards which start at 84sqm for a 3 bed 2 story house. Came in in 2015.
    https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Technical_housing_standards_-_nationally_described_space_standard

    I'm not absolutely clear whether that is required, or imposable by an LPA.

    If it counts as Building Regs, there are also differences on which version of Building Regs applies to a Planning Permission obtained at a particular date dependent on which of the 4 UK Govts you are talking about.
    That’s mad. I live in a 2-bed apartment of 1200 sq ft, about 110 sq m. A two-up, two-down here is 1,800 sq ft.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,542
    edited October 2022

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    Why back something that you know will lead to so many problems . The DUP backed Brexit and have to accept the consequences.

    And now refuse to accept the consequences of their actions . Mitigation can be made but there’s no perfect outcome which they refuse to accept . They seem to ignore that Brexit happened.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,964
    slade said:

    Slim pickings on the local by-election front today. Just a Con defence in Derbyshire and a Lab defence in Sandwell. I expect Labour to win both.

    On recent by-election form, the Tories will lose to an Independent and Labour lose to the Tories!!

    Trying to mesh them into the national picture has been challenging.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    The rule is effectively, that if you are XY, you must have started gender affirming care before approximately 12, which is the point that most XY people exceed 2.5nm/L

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Testosterone_levels_in_males_and_females
    Unintended consequences ahoy.
    What are you thinking?

    The rules only apply to XY people. There's not check on XX, unless they received external testosterone.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    .

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    I think you are hearing things in your doggy ears. Or to put it another way, how could she articulate her argument that Scotland shouldn't be governed by a UK-wide parliament in such a way that you don't hear it as "I hate the English"?
    "The UK".

    I'm not sure if she hates the English, but a goodly chunk of her supporters do.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,102
    The YouGov proves my point. That's at peak Rishi and Labour have a 28% lead.

    You don't come back from this. The tories are in for a drubbing.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    A dog-whistle is something you say so that your supporters understand what you mean but the general listener doesn’t. What you’re talking about here is something where everybody understands what it means. So, not a dog-whistle.

    It's not a great dog-whistle any more because the secret is out, although plenty of people don't yet see it.
  • Off topic

    Have we done this yet?

    Shapps, Gove, Mercer, Raab and Barclay have each received £16,876 redundancy payments for their dismissal by Ms Truss. Despite being back in government six weeks later they remain entitled to the money. In all fairness to Shapps he is donating half to charity, while Gove and Raab would like to pay half back when they can afford to.

    Nice work boys!

    Is there a betting angle there? When betting on next minister out, should we lean towards ministers who can afford to walk away, such as squillionaires Hunt and Zahawi, rather than those who depend on the ministerial salary to keep them in champagne and caviar?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Heathener said:

    The YouGov proves my point. That's at peak Rishi and Labour have a 28% lead.

    You don't come back from this. The tories are in for a drubbing.

    You're assuming what you want to prove.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    Seriously? You honestly think that is an example of using "Westminster" as "dog whistle" for England?

    She seems to be very straightforwardly saying she doesn't think Scotland should be ruled "by Westminster". The only thing I would say is the use of the word "by" is less neutral than "from", but we already know that she isn't on the fence on this issue!

    But use of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government is absolutely standard language. You surely must have noticed this?

    The only way I can make sense of what you say is if you think that being in favour Scottish independence is in itself not an acceptable opinion.

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    As always compromise is needed, and the DUP refuse to compromise. Does the entire community allow all its services and the GFA and peace be held hostage by a minority group? Whilst there has to be consensus, there can't practically be a veto whether that is exercised by the DUP or SF.

    What the government need to tell these orange-sash wazzocks is that in the new assembly to be elected, they can choose not to sit but the assembly will go on. At which point they will sit.
    Bart, do you support continued enforced consociationalism in the NI Assembly? I would’ve thought you’d be in favour of a move towards a normal democracy, as Alliance call for. If that happened, then of course the DUP’s protest would get them nowhere with a majority of Assembly members supporting resumption of normal Assembly activity.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    “The Home Affairs Committee was told that "one to two percent" of the entire male population of Albania - around 10,000 men - arrived on small boats this year alone”

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1585362210523648009?s=46&t=MR0RvTp-dCr-GHWMb65iDw

    This is actually an exaggeration. It’s 1-2% of YOUNGER Albanian males. But it gives a scale

    And this is why Rwanda will work. These are not asylum seekers from Sudan or Syria. They are European men gaming the system. Offer them a 5% chance that their game will end in central Africa and they will stop coming

    The population of Albania is 2.80-2.9 m. About 1.4 m will be male. 1% of 1.4 m is 14,000. If you exclude under 18s the figure is not far off, though exaggerated. It's in the ball park.

    Albania appears to be a multi party democracy and a recognised applicant to join the EU. What possible grounds can there be for refugee status?

    Are they claiming to be from Albania? I thought the game was to dump all paperwork and claim to be Syrian?
    That seems implausible. It would take a couple of minutes to establish whether they are fluent in Levantine Arabic or not.

    Fine, so on what grounds are Albanians being accepted at rate of 95%? Are they claiming to be homosexual and persecuted?
    They’re not being accepted at a rate of 95%. Where are you getting this nonsense from?

    Mis-remembering - what is the rate of acceptance?
  • carnforth said:

    Facebook shares pre-market going for $100, compared with $345 one year ago. Not sure anyone except Zuckerburg thinks spendings billions on the metaverse will pay off.

    I'm old enough to remember when the BBC inexplicably hyped "Second Life".
    Indeed. And what.three.words

    The BBC does seem to sometimes get an idea in its head that something is going to be great and really hypes it even when there's no evidence of it taking off or having a business plan.

    Facebook is utter shite now. I only log into it anymore as I still use it for Messenger more than Whatsapp, but frankly getting more tempted to switch to Whatsapp as Facebook itself is pure manure. Every other thing that comes up on your "news feed" is alternatively an advert or some stupid, puerile meme recommended "for you" from pages I've neither liked nor shown any interest in. Not pictures from friends or family which are increasingly hard to see or find, which was the entire point of the site.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    Why back something that you know will lead to so many problems . The DUP backed Brexit and have to accept the consequences.

    And now refuse to accept the consequences of their actions . Mitigation can be made but there’s no perfect outcome which they refuse to accept . They seem to ignore that Brexit happened.
    What's the consequences of their actions? The consequence of Brexit means Britain leaving the EU and the Single Market, and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain so they have to leave it to.

    That's not happened, so they're perfectly entitled to shut down Stormont until it does, or until they're made happy.

    Brexit means Brexit for the entire country, not just GB.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
  • RunDeepRunDeep Posts: 77
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    That is a naive view. The evidence shows that a man who has gender dysphoria and gets a GRC retains the same patterns of offending as men. Of course someone has to be criminally minded to offend. But the difference between the two is that the man with a GRC can legally try to insist on getting access to spaces where he can access victims. And even though the legislation does permit someone with a GRC to be legally discriminated against on the grounds of his sex, which does not change, in practice organisations are so afraid of being called transphobic that they do not use the exemptions under the Equality Act permitting them to do this. So his criminal behaviour is made easier. And of course the Scottish legislation does not simply restrict itself to giving a GRC to those with gender dysphoria. This requirement is completely absent.

    It is not the GRC which makes a man a criminal. But giving a GRC to a man who is a criminal - as this legislation will permit - is both absurd and dangerous.

    The position of too many is not to address the concerns raised and stress test the proposals to see whether they have validity and how they might be eliminated or mitigated. Rather it is to say that because the vulnerable can already be attacked in other ways it really doesn't matter if another option is added. Ms Sturgeon said as much in a recent interview. Such an opinion is really quite as repellent as Ms Braverman's opinions on migrants.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    Seriously? You honestly think that is an example of using "Westminster" as "dog whistle" for England?

    She seems to be very straightforwardly saying she doesn't think Scotland should be ruled "by Westminster". The only thing I would say is the use of the word "by" is less neutral than "from", but we already know that she isn't on the fence on this issue!

    But use of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government is absolutely standard language. You surely must have noticed this?

    The only way I can make sense of what you say is if you think that being in favour Scottish independence is in itself not an acceptable opinion.

    Being in favour of it is, stoking Anglophobia to do so isn't.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,632
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ydoethur said:

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t stand the fact they don’t have the first minister role and so are hoping that the Unionist vote will corral around them when new elections are called .

    They always were dumb as rocks.
    Can't rate that pun higher than OK.
    As a founding member of the Royal Society for The Advancement Of The Rights Of Rocks, can you please drop the petraphobia?

    If you have rocks, you can make a nice garden or some useful structures. If you have the DUP…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/27/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pensions-tax-bonds-meta/
    Shell did not pay the UK windfall tax in the third quarter despite doubling its profits to $9.5bn (£8.2bn).

    “The energy giant avoided additional levy because it was making big investments in North Sea fields.

    “Sinead Gorman, Shell’s chief financial officer, told reporters: “Heavy capex means we haven’t had extra tax coming through.”

    “Rishi Sunak imposed a windfall tax on oil and gas profits in May, when he was Chancellor. The measure allows investments in new fields to be offset against the levy as an incentive for companies to boost domestic energy supplies.”
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    carnforth said:

    Facebook shares pre-market going for $100, compared with $345 one year ago. Not sure anyone except Zuckerburg thinks spendings billions on the metaverse will pay off.

    I'm old enough to remember when the BBC inexplicably hyped "Second Life".
    Indeed. And what.three.words

    The BBC does seem to sometimes get an idea in its head that something is going to be great and really hypes it even when there's no evidence of it taking off or having a business plan.

    Facebook is utter shite now. I only log into it anymore as I still use it for Messenger more than Whatsapp, but frankly getting more tempted to switch to Whatsapp as Facebook itself is pure manure. Every other thing that comes up on your "news feed" is alternatively an advert or some stupid, puerile meme recommended "for you" from pages I've neither liked nor shown any interest in. Not pictures from friends or family which are increasingly hard to see or find, which was the entire point of the site.
    I have primarily used it for groups for some time, but it's becoming much more difficult with the "top comments" nonsense.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    carnforth said:

    Facebook shares pre-market going for $100, compared with $345 one year ago. Not sure anyone except Zuckerburg thinks spendings billions on the metaverse will pay off.

    I'm old enough to remember when the BBC inexplicably hyped "Second Life".
    We tried this at PlayStation when I was there with PS Life. It was an abysmal failure and everyone partied when management finally admitted defeat and shut it down.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    Seriously? You honestly think that is an example of using "Westminster" as "dog whistle" for England?

    She seems to be very straightforwardly saying she doesn't think Scotland should be ruled "by Westminster". The only thing I would say is the use of the word "by" is less neutral than "from", but we already know that she isn't on the fence on this issue!

    But use of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government is absolutely standard language. You surely must have noticed this?

    The only way I can make sense of what you say is if you think that being in favour Scottish independence is in itself not an acceptable opinion.

    Being in favour of it is, stoking Anglophobia to do so isn't.
    Sure, but if your definition of "stoking Anglophobia" includes using the perfectly standard "Westminster" for "the parliament of the United Kingdom", then I guess you will find any expression of it to be "stoking Anglophobia"
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,160
    edited October 2022

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
  • Sandpit said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/27/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pensions-tax-bonds-meta/
    Shell did not pay the UK windfall tax in the third quarter despite doubling its profits to $9.5bn (£8.2bn).

    “The energy giant avoided additional levy because it was making big investments in North Sea fields.

    “Sinead Gorman, Shell’s chief financial officer, told reporters: “Heavy capex means we haven’t had extra tax coming through.”

    “Rishi Sunak imposed a windfall tax on oil and gas profits in May, when he was Chancellor. The measure allows investments in new fields to be offset against the levy as an incentive for companies to boost domestic energy supplies.”

    but we want investments in oil fields dont we? Energy security and all that
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    Seriously? You honestly think that is an example of using "Westminster" as "dog whistle" for England?

    She seems to be very straightforwardly saying she doesn't think Scotland should be ruled "by Westminster". The only thing I would say is the use of the word "by" is less neutral than "from", but we already know that she isn't on the fence on this issue!

    But use of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government is absolutely standard language. You surely must have noticed this?

    The only way I can make sense of what you say is if you think that being in favour Scottish independence is in itself not an acceptable opinion.

    Being in favour of it is, stoking Anglophobia to do so isn't.
    Sure, but if your definition of "stoking Anglophobia" includes using the perfectly standard "Westminster" for "the parliament of the United Kingdom", then I guess you will find any expression of it to be "stoking Anglophobia"
    In reality, enough of the present support for Scottish independence is driven by Anglophobia that it would be difficult to construct a majority without pandering to that group - though that could change in future.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,542

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    Why back something that you know will lead to so many problems . The DUP backed Brexit and have to accept the consequences.

    And now refuse to accept the consequences of their actions . Mitigation can be made but there’s no perfect outcome which they refuse to accept . They seem to ignore that Brexit happened.
    What's the consequences of their actions? The consequence of Brexit means Britain leaving the EU and the Single Market, and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain so they have to leave it to.

    That's not happened, so they're perfectly entitled to shut down Stormont until it does, or until they're made happy.

    Brexit means Brexit for the entire country, not just GB.
    You seem to have ignored the history of NI . Backing Brexit if you live in the rest of the UK is one thing . Backing it if you live in NI is unforgivable.
  • Well.


    Dear, oh dear!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Sandpit said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/27/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pensions-tax-bonds-meta/
    Shell did not pay the UK windfall tax in the third quarter despite doubling its profits to $9.5bn (£8.2bn).

    “The energy giant avoided additional levy because it was making big investments in North Sea fields.

    “Sinead Gorman, Shell’s chief financial officer, told reporters: “Heavy capex means we haven’t had extra tax coming through.”

    “Rishi Sunak imposed a windfall tax on oil and gas profits in May, when he was Chancellor. The measure allows investments in new fields to be offset against the levy as an incentive for companies to boost domestic energy supplies.”

    but we want investments in oil fields dont we? Energy security and all that
    No, we want energy security for free and to tax Qatar on their gas profits. I think that's the Labour position anyway.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    Well.


    Better than 'I'll have a chicken madras, two poppadoms and a garlic naan', which went round whatsapp like Michael Johnson on the athletics track.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603

    Hey lads, now Putey has let the anti-woke side down, a new hero for you.
    It does beg the question which toilets does the teak-headed one think he won’t be following Eddie into though.


    Is Lee entirely sure he will ned to worry too much about Izzard's elevation to the HoC? All depends on Ashfield Independents I suppose.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    edited October 2022
    Heathener said:

    The YouGov proves my point. That's at peak Rishi and Labour have a 28% lead.

    You don't come back from this. The tories are in for a drubbing.

    I remember a few year (probably more than that, to be honest) there was a lot of talk on here about "swing back". We will find out if that still happens!
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    Seriously? You honestly think that is an example of using "Westminster" as "dog whistle" for England?

    She seems to be very straightforwardly saying she doesn't think Scotland should be ruled "by Westminster". The only thing I would say is the use of the word "by" is less neutral than "from", but we already know that she isn't on the fence on this issue!

    But use of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government is absolutely standard language. You surely must have noticed this?

    The only way I can make sense of what you say is if you think that being in favour Scottish independence is in itself not an acceptable opinion.

    Being in favour of it is, stoking Anglophobia to do so isn't.
    Sure, but if your definition of "stoking Anglophobia" includes using the perfectly standard "Westminster" for "the parliament of the United Kingdom", then I guess you will find any expression of it to be "stoking Anglophobia"
    In reality, enough of the present support for Scottish independence is driven by Anglophobia that it would be difficult to construct a majority without pandering to that group - though that could change in future.
    what has that got to do with the allegedly "anglophobic" nature of the word "Westminster"?
  • nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    The people of Northern Ireland voted to Remain: 56% v. 44%.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175
    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
  • nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    As always compromise is needed, and the DUP refuse to compromise. Does the entire community allow all its services and the GFA and peace be held hostage by a minority group? Whilst there has to be consensus, there can't practically be a veto whether that is exercised by the DUP or SF.

    What the government need to tell these orange-sash wazzocks is that in the new assembly to be elected, they can choose not to sit but the assembly will go on. At which point they will sit.
    There can practically be a veto, that is the entire point of the Good Friday Agreement!

    Considering the entire point of the Protocol/Backstop drama was supposedly "to protect the Good Friday Agreement" based on concerns of the nationalists, you have no right to object to the unionists using the Good Friday Agreement to protect their own concerns, do you?

    If you're saying you want to abolish the Good Friday Agreement then make the case for that. If you do, then it no longer needs protecting, so the Protocol can be abolished with it and NI can come lockstep in line with the rest of the post-Brexit UK, I'm sure the DUP would be delighted with that, but I'm not so sure Sinn Fein would be. Or Brussels.

    So any compromise, if you're not prepared to abolish the Good Friday Agreement, needs to be a compromise that meets the concerns of the DUP.

    @bondegezou asked if I support continued enforced consociationalism? Well no, it wouldn't be my choice, but it was the choice made in the Good Friday Agreement and it is the choice that has led to where we are today. An abolition of the Good Friday Agreement/consociationalism should be done with the agreement of both communities, which means both the DUP and Sinn Fein would have a right to veto the abolition of their veto, which brings us back to square one.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,632
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/27/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pensions-tax-bonds-meta/
    Shell did not pay the UK windfall tax in the third quarter despite doubling its profits to $9.5bn (£8.2bn).

    “The energy giant avoided additional levy because it was making big investments in North Sea fields.

    “Sinead Gorman, Shell’s chief financial officer, told reporters: “Heavy capex means we haven’t had extra tax coming through.”

    “Rishi Sunak imposed a windfall tax on oil and gas profits in May, when he was Chancellor. The measure allows investments in new fields to be offset against the levy as an incentive for companies to boost domestic energy supplies.”

    but we want investments in oil fields dont we? Energy security and all that
    No, we want energy security for free and to tax Qatar on their gas profits. I think that's the Labour position anyway.
    Got most of the paperwork done for the Anglo Persian Oil Company.

    Who should we contract the hostile takeover stuff to? Blackwater charge a lot. I hear that Wagner group are looking for a change of scene from their current gig.
  • nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    The people of Northern Ireland voted to Remain: 56% v. 44%.
    The people of Northern Ireland didn't have a referendum on their own, any more than the people of Liverpool did.

    The people the United Kingdom voted to Leave: 52% v 48%

    NI has a right to choose to be in the UK, or out of it, but if its in the UK then its part of the UK's vote to Leave.
  • RunDeepRunDeep Posts: 77
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    You will have lived 3 months as a woman and made a solemn legal declaration that you intend to so live the rest of your life.

    It'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent.
    Here is the proposed legislation.

    https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced.pdf

    It does not say that it will be a criminal offence "to do this frivolously or with malign intent". You can live as a woman or man (unspecified what this means since no evidence need be provided) for 3 months and get a GRC after a further 3 months. You can say that it is your intention to do so but, again, there is no need to provide any evidence supporting this. You can change your mind at any point after getting a GRC and it would not make the statutory declaration wrong. It is hard to see how anyone could be prosecuted. If no evidence is need to justify the statutory declaration how could there be any proof to support a prosecution. It is an entirely Potemkin provision.


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited October 2022

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not on FINA to prove the opposite.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Very few people wish to eliminate women's sport. I think how it is now - each sport finding its way to its own rules around this - is ok.
    No it simply isn't, because you can bet your house that a "sport" overall finding its way to its own rules will be a gross injustice to a very large minority or a majority of participants in that sport.

    This is quantifiable. I predict that no sport will vote for trans = real women by a majority greater than 55-45.
    It's impossible to please everybody on this tricky issue - but each sport is different so they need to look at it and come to their own view imo. I think that's better than something imposed.
    It's impossible to please everybody on the tricky issue whether homosexuality should be a crime. Each sport is not materially different for these purposes, that's like saying different rules should govern criminal liability for stealing Rugby club funds, and cricket club funds.
    That's not a tricky issue though. This one is because 2 things are in play and potentially at odds. The principles of Inclusion and Fairness.
    I don't think it's tricky at all, in sport fairness trumps inclusion very very heavily.
    And how that maps to the precise rules in each sport will vary.
    Always with the edge cases.

    If you were explaining the world to a artian visitor and he asked what sport meant, and you said Thing at which birth men tend to routinely outperform birth women, he would have a pretty good grasp of the extension of the term.
    Is Holly Doyle an edge case?
    Or Piggy French, for something closer, I imagine, to @Ishmael_Z's heart.
    Marsh now. Have hunted with the P------y with her sister!
    Not a million miles from me...
  • .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    It literally is to do with what you wrote.

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised [to natural male levels] for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process [such as being male], should you really be forever banned [from female sport]?

    I would characterise it as saying if someone XY has medical proof that their testosterone has never been above 2.5, then they could perhaps be able to compete in women's sport, but if they can't then they should forever banned from competing in women's sport, yes. Women's sport is for women with women's hormones all their life.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175
    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not the other way round.
    It is impossible for someone to prove they “have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l”.

  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,463
    Sandpit said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/27/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pensions-tax-bonds-meta/
    Shell did not pay the UK windfall tax in the third quarter despite doubling its profits to $9.5bn (£8.2bn).

    “The energy giant avoided additional levy because it was making big investments in North Sea fields.

    “Sinead Gorman, Shell’s chief financial officer, told reporters: “Heavy capex means we haven’t had extra tax coming through.”

    “Rishi Sunak imposed a windfall tax on oil and gas profits in May, when he was Chancellor. The measure allows investments in new fields to be offset against the levy as an incentive for companies to boost domestic energy supplies.”

    So, Shell managed to find a way of avoiding the windfall tax.
    There's a surprise.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Heathener said:

    I see that pb's obsession with trans issues, which mirrors the geriatric tory membership, goes on.

    Seriously, all of you, get over it and let people live their lives.

    You're on the wrong side of history. You have a choice: either go with the flow or become embittered old fools like Leon.

    Let people get on with their lives? Fine, but what of say women swimmers who might end up losing medals, sponsorship, funding etc because a trans athlete, male through puberty, swims faster than her? Genuine questions that deserve debate.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Heathener said:

    I see that pb's obsession with trans issues, which mirrors the geriatric tory membership, goes on.

    Seriously, all of you, get over it and let people live their lives.

    You're on the wrong side of history. You have a choice: either go with the flow or become embittered old fools like Leon.

    It does seem to be the brain worms of choice for permanently online people.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,160
    edited October 2022
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    Why back something that you know will lead to so many problems . The DUP backed Brexit and have to accept the consequences.

    And now refuse to accept the consequences of their actions . Mitigation can be made but there’s no perfect outcome which they refuse to accept . They seem to ignore that Brexit happened.
    What's the consequences of their actions? The consequence of Brexit means Britain leaving the EU and the Single Market, and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain so they have to leave it to.

    That's not happened, so they're perfectly entitled to shut down Stormont until it does, or until they're made happy.

    Brexit means Brexit for the entire country, not just GB.
    You seem to have ignored the history of NI . Backing Brexit if you live in the rest of the UK is one thing . Backing it if you live in NI is unforgivable.
    I've not ignored it. Its perfectly acceptable to back Brexit in NI which is why over 40% of NI voters did so. But either way NI is a part of the UK, so goes along with UK decisions, if it wants to leave the UK, then the GFA gives it the right to do so.

    But if it doesn't leave the UK, the GFA also gives both communities a veto on Stormont. That means the Unionists, not just the Nationalists.

    You lot spent the last few years trying to weaponise the border to prevent Brexit and banged on so much about "protecting the Good Friday Agreement" that you forgot what the GFA was all about and forgot that the DUP have just as much of a veto as Sinn Fein do.

    Oh well. Too bad. So sad.

    If you want compromise, then lets see some compromise on the Protocol to get it to the point the DUP are happy with it, until then, they have a legitimate right to veto, a legitimate right you supposedly wanted to "protect".
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    It literally is to do with what you wrote.

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised [to natural male levels] for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process [such as being male], should you really be forever banned [from female sport]?

    I would characterise it as saying if someone XY has medical proof that their testosterone has never been above 2.5, then they could perhaps be able to compete in women's sport, but if they can't then they should forever banned from competing in women's sport, yes. Women's sport is for women with women's hormones all their life.
    It isn’t “literally” what I wrote. You’ve added commentary that changes the meaning. All those bits in []s.
  • Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not the other way round.
    It is impossible for someone to prove they “have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l”.

    In which case it will be impossible for them to compete in female sports, but they can still live their life however they please besides that.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Sandpit said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/27/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pensions-tax-bonds-meta/
    Shell did not pay the UK windfall tax in the third quarter despite doubling its profits to $9.5bn (£8.2bn).

    “The energy giant avoided additional levy because it was making big investments in North Sea fields.

    “Sinead Gorman, Shell’s chief financial officer, told reporters: “Heavy capex means we haven’t had extra tax coming through.”

    “Rishi Sunak imposed a windfall tax on oil and gas profits in May, when he was Chancellor. The measure allows investments in new fields to be offset against the levy as an incentive for companies to boost domestic energy supplies.”

    So, Shell managed to find a way of avoiding the windfall tax.
    There's a surprise.
    “Avoiding” tax by investing in productivity is the outcome designed (and wished) for in the structure of company taxation in the U.K.
    Not for the people who demand a windfall tax to punish the oil companies...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not the other way round.
    It is impossible for someone to prove they “have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l”.

    In which case it will be impossible for them to compete in female sports, but they can still live their life however they please besides that.
    So why bother with the first part of your clause (ii)?

  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not on FINA to prove the opposite.
    This kind of rule would still harm ciswomen - indeed athletes with high levels of testosterone are already being punished regardless of whether this is just a natural difference or due to transition.

    When we recognise that Michael Phelps is a genetic peculiarity that just happens to make him significantly better than most other people at swimming, we laud him and his achievements. When women (typically black women) have genetic peculiarities that just happens to make them significantly better than most other women at running or athletics, they are exiled and smeared - subject to intrusive testing and abuse.

    There is no way to regulate the bodies and hormones of women athletes that does not also increase the opportunities for discrimination or even abuse.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    As always compromise is needed, and the DUP refuse to compromise. Does the entire community allow all its services and the GFA and peace be held hostage by a minority group? Whilst there has to be consensus, there can't practically be a veto whether that is exercised by the DUP or SF.

    What the government need to tell these orange-sash wazzocks is that in the new assembly to be elected, they can choose not to sit but the assembly will go on. At which point they will sit.
    There can practically be a veto, that is the entire point of the Good Friday Agreement!

    Considering the entire point of the Protocol/Backstop drama was supposedly "to protect the Good Friday Agreement" based on concerns of the nationalists, you have no right to object to the unionists using the Good Friday Agreement to protect their own concerns, do you?

    If you're saying you want to abolish the Good Friday Agreement then make the case for that. If you do, then it no longer needs protecting, so the Protocol can be abolished with it and NI can come lockstep in line with the rest of the post-Brexit UK, I'm sure the DUP would be delighted with that, but I'm not so sure Sinn Fein would be. Or Brussels.

    So any compromise, if you're not prepared to abolish the Good Friday Agreement, needs to be a compromise that meets the concerns of the DUP.

    @bondegezou asked if I support continued enforced consociationalism? Well no, it wouldn't be my choice, but it was the choice made in the Good Friday Agreement and it is the choice that has led to where we are today. An abolition of the Good Friday Agreement/consociationalism should be done with the agreement of both communities, which means both the DUP and Sinn Fein would have a right to veto the abolition of their veto, which brings us back to square one.
    The breakdown of power sharing in Northern Ireland is a 'feature' of Brexit, not a 'bug'.
  • .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    It literally is to do with what you wrote.

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised [to natural male levels] for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process [such as being male], should you really be forever banned [from female sport]?

    I would characterise it as saying if someone XY has medical proof that their testosterone has never been above 2.5, then they could perhaps be able to compete in women's sport, but if they can't then they should forever banned from competing in women's sport, yes. Women's sport is for women with women's hormones all their life.
    It isn’t “literally” what I wrote. You’ve added commentary that changes the meaning. All those bits in []s.
    It doesn't change the meaning. The 3 [] were all part of the conversation.

    The conversation was about women's sport.

    The testosterone level being raised [to natural male levels] is what the measurement is about.

    And the natural process we're talking about, is being naturally male.

    None of that changes the meaning, it just spells out quite clearly what we're talking about.

    If you're not talking about women's sport, then there's no issue. There's no reason a trans person with XY chromosomes should be banned from male sport, nobody has an issue with men's sport being open to all.

    If you meant something completely different, then what natural process [other than being male] and what ban [other than from female sport] are you talking about?
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    Heathener said:

    I see that pb's obsession with trans issues, which mirrors the geriatric tory membership, goes on.

    Seriously, all of you, get over it and let people live their lives.

    You're on the wrong side of history. You have a choice: either go with the flow or become embittered old fools like Leon.

    I'm not quite sure how not being OK with anyone who declares themselves a woman walking into women's toilets or changing rooms makes them an embittered old fool. More like they want to protect women from predatory men dressing up as women.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited October 2022
    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not on FINA to prove the opposite.
    This kind of rule would still harm ciswomen - indeed athletes with high levels of testosterone are already being punished regardless of whether this is just a natural difference or due to transition.

    When we recognise that Michael Phelps is a genetic peculiarity that just happens to make him significantly better than most other people at swimming, we laud him and his achievements. When women (typically black women) have genetic peculiarities that just happens to make them significantly better than most other women at running or athletics, they are exiled and smeared - subject to intrusive testing and abuse.

    There is no way to regulate the bodies and hormones of women athletes that does not also increase the opportunities for discrimination or even abuse.
    It doesn't harm ciswomen because the test is not applicable to those with XX chromosones.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630

    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not the other way round.
    It is impossible for someone to prove they “have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l”.

    In which case it will be impossible for them to compete in female sports, but they can still live their life however they please besides that.
    No human can prove that. Why would anyone have records from birth of their T levels? If that was the standard are you saying anyone who wishes to participate in womens' sports should have T level tests every 6 months from the moment they could potentially start puberty? It's an impossible standard to meet.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,632
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    Why back something that you know will lead to so many problems . The DUP backed Brexit and have to accept the consequences.

    And now refuse to accept the consequences of their actions . Mitigation can be made but there’s no perfect outcome which they refuse to accept . They seem to ignore that Brexit happened.
    What's the consequences of their actions? The consequence of Brexit means Britain leaving the EU and the Single Market, and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain so they have to leave it to.

    That's not happened, so they're perfectly entitled to shut down Stormont until it does, or until they're made happy.

    Brexit means Brexit for the entire country, not just GB.
    You seem to have ignored the history of NI . Backing Brexit if you live in the rest of the UK is one thing . Backing it if you live in NI is unforgivable.
    The recent history of politics in Northern Ireland is that the more moderate and non violent you are, the more you are sidelined.

    The U.K. and Irish governments have carefully coddled The Men Of Violence. The more threats, the more intransigence, the more “listening”.

    The lesson has been observed and acted upon. What do you expect?
  • nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    As always compromise is needed, and the DUP refuse to compromise. Does the entire community allow all its services and the GFA and peace be held hostage by a minority group? Whilst there has to be consensus, there can't practically be a veto whether that is exercised by the DUP or SF.

    What the government need to tell these orange-sash wazzocks is that in the new assembly to be elected, they can choose not to sit but the assembly will go on. At which point they will sit.
    There can practically be a veto, that is the entire point of the Good Friday Agreement!

    Considering the entire point of the Protocol/Backstop drama was supposedly "to protect the Good Friday Agreement" based on concerns of the nationalists, you have no right to object to the unionists using the Good Friday Agreement to protect their own concerns, do you?

    If you're saying you want to abolish the Good Friday Agreement then make the case for that. If you do, then it no longer needs protecting, so the Protocol can be abolished with it and NI can come lockstep in line with the rest of the post-Brexit UK, I'm sure the DUP would be delighted with that, but I'm not so sure Sinn Fein would be. Or Brussels.

    So any compromise, if you're not prepared to abolish the Good Friday Agreement, needs to be a compromise that meets the concerns of the DUP.

    @bondegezou asked if I support continued enforced consociationalism? Well no, it wouldn't be my choice, but it was the choice made in the Good Friday Agreement and it is the choice that has led to where we are today. An abolition of the Good Friday Agreement/consociationalism should be done with the agreement of both communities, which means both the DUP and Sinn Fein would have a right to veto the abolition of their veto, which brings us back to square one.
    The breakdown of power sharing in Northern Ireland is a 'feature' of Brexit, not a 'bug'.
    The breakdown of power sharing has happened due to the Protocol, not Brexit. Not a single party are refusing to sit in Stormont due to Brexit.

    The Protocol was demanded because of the desire of the Nationalists and the EU and Remainers to "protect the Good Friday Agreement". Now they're crying crocodile tears that the DUP are exercising their veto given to them by the Good Friday Agreement. What a shame!
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,463

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    Why back something that you know will lead to so many problems . The DUP backed Brexit and have to accept the consequences.

    And now refuse to accept the consequences of their actions . Mitigation can be made but there’s no perfect outcome which they refuse to accept . They seem to ignore that Brexit happened.
    What's the consequences of their actions? The consequence of Brexit means Britain leaving the EU and the Single Market, and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain so they have to leave it to.

    That's not happened, so they're perfectly entitled to shut down Stormont until it does, or until they're made happy.

    Brexit means Brexit for the entire country, not just GB.
    You seem to have ignored the history of NI . Backing Brexit if you live in the rest of the UK is one thing . Backing it if you live in NI is unforgivable.
    I've not ignored it. Its perfectly acceptable to back Brexit in NI which is why over 40% of NI voters did so. But either way NI is a part of the UK, so goes along with UK decisions, if it wants to leave the UK, then the GFA gives it the right to do so.

    But if it doesn't leave the UK, the GFA also gives both communities a veto on Stormont. That means the Unionists, not just the Nationalists.

    You lot spent the last few years trying to weaponise the border to prevent Brexit and banged on so much about "protecting the Good Friday Agreement" that you forgot what the GFA was all about and forgot that the DUP have just as much of a veto as Sinn Fein do.

    Oh well. Too bad. So sad.

    If you want compromise, then lets see some compromise on the Protocol to get it to the point the DUP are happy with it, until then, they have a legitimate right to veto, a legitimate right you supposedly wanted to "protect".
    The weakness of your argument is that the DUP are never happy with anything. They exist to be malcontents. If the Protocol is resolved to their satisfaction, they'll soon find something else to make them unhappy.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,160
    edited October 2022
    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not the other way round.
    It is impossible for someone to prove they “have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l”.

    In which case it will be impossible for them to compete in female sports, but they can still live their life however they please besides that.
    No human can prove that. Why would anyone have records from birth of their T levels? If that was the standard are you saying anyone who wishes to participate in womens' sports should have T level tests every 6 months from the moment they could potentially start puberty? It's an impossible standard to meet.
    No, I'm saying anyone who wishes to participate in women's sport has to be a woman, or if they're not a woman, then they have to have those records.

    The problem is we're talking about people who are sexually not women, but want to compete competitively in women's sport. The simplest alternative would be to keep women's sport for women, but having an alternative option for non-women to compete in women's sport, if they meet the criteria seems reasonable, doesn't it to you?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    It literally is to do with what you wrote.

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised [to natural male levels] for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process [such as being male], should you really be forever banned [from female sport]?

    I would characterise it as saying if someone XY has medical proof that their testosterone has never been above 2.5, then they could perhaps be able to compete in women's sport, but if they can't then they should forever banned from competing in women's sport, yes. Women's sport is for women with women's hormones all their life.
    It isn’t “literally” what I wrote. You’ve added commentary that changes the meaning. All those bits in []s.
    It doesn't change the meaning. The 3 [] were all part of the conversation.

    The conversation was about women's sport.

    The testosterone level being raised [to natural male levels] is what the measurement is about.

    And the natural process we're talking about, is being naturally male.

    None of that changes the meaning, it just spells out quite clearly what we're talking about.

    If you're not talking about women's sport, then there's no issue. There's no reason a trans person with XY chromosomes should be banned from male sport, nobody has an issue with men's sport being open to all.

    If you meant something completely different, then what natural process [other than being male] and what ban [other than from female sport] are you talking about?
    Most of the time, the usual reason why testosterone levels are raised are because someone is male, but that’s not the only natural process that can raise testosterone levels. The problem with rules, and my point was about how to write the rules, is that they have to work for everyone, including complicated cases, and not just as political polemic. It is unusual but possible for someone to have a Y chromosome, but generally low levels of testosterone and to present as female, and then to have a brief elevation in their testosterone level.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    edited October 2022
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
    The reality is that Sturgeon and co tend to use "Westminster" as a dog-whistle for "England".
    Any examples of this?
    Pretty much every time Sturgeon and co use the word "Westminster".
    Shouldn't be difficult to find one example, then?

    The first quote that I find on the internet is
    'She said: “If Scotland were independent right now, there is no chance that we would look at today’s UK and believe it was in our interests to be ruled by Westminster."'

    Which seems absolutely standard usage of "Westminster" to mean the UK parliament/government.
    Thank you for finding an example of exactly what I was talking about - a dog-whistle so her supporters understand "England".
    Why is that a "dog whistle" when the SNP is quite openly a nationalist party seeking independence ?

    It's equally the Tories who define themselves UK wide as anti-SNP with their "a Labour govt would be in the SNP's pocket" campaigns.

    I don't see what your point is.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    That of course, is the point. Sinn Fein threw a strop in 2017, and no executive could be formed without their involvement.

    By all means drop cross-communitarianism, but that has to apply across the board, not just when it's the DUP who are being obstructive.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Heathener said:

    I see that pb's obsession with trans issues, which mirrors the geriatric tory membership, goes on.

    Seriously, all of you, get over it and let people live their lives.

    You're on the wrong side of history. You have a choice: either go with the flow or become embittered old fools like Leon.

    Exactly. A bunch of mainly old blokes opining on gender.

    People ought to spend some time with some "young people". They are a lot more relaxed about these kind of things than most people on here.

    And as I said in my very first comment on the subject, sports and prisons need some thinking but it's not beyond the wit of person to sort it out.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    Why back something that you know will lead to so many problems . The DUP backed Brexit and have to accept the consequences.

    And now refuse to accept the consequences of their actions . Mitigation can be made but there’s no perfect outcome which they refuse to accept . They seem to ignore that Brexit happened.
    What's the consequences of their actions? The consequence of Brexit means Britain leaving the EU and the Single Market, and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain so they have to leave it to.

    That's not happened, so they're perfectly entitled to shut down Stormont until it does, or until they're made happy.

    Brexit means Brexit for the entire country, not just GB.
    You seem to have ignored the history of NI . Backing Brexit if you live in the rest of the UK is one thing . Backing it if you live in NI is unforgivable.
    I've not ignored it. Its perfectly acceptable to back Brexit in NI which is why over 40% of NI voters did so. But either way NI is a part of the UK, so goes along with UK decisions, if it wants to leave the UK, then the GFA gives it the right to do so.

    But if it doesn't leave the UK, the GFA also gives both communities a veto on Stormont. That means the Unionists, not just the Nationalists.

    You lot spent the last few years trying to weaponise the border to prevent Brexit and banged on so much about "protecting the Good Friday Agreement" that you forgot what the GFA was all about and forgot that the DUP have just as much of a veto as Sinn Fein do.

    Oh well. Too bad. So sad.

    If you want compromise, then lets see some compromise on the Protocol to get it to the point the DUP are happy with it, until then, they have a legitimate right to veto, a legitimate right you supposedly wanted to "protect".
    The weakness of your argument is that the DUP are never happy with anything. They exist to be malcontents. If the Protocol is resolved to their satisfaction, they'll soon find something else to make them unhappy.
    That's not a weakness of my argument, that's a weakness of the Good Friday Agreement.

    If they do, you then need to resolve their next concern. Or they will have the right to shut down Stormont again until you address their next concern. And this process will go on until the GFA is scrapped or they run out of things to be malcontent about.

    So what's your suggestion? Do you want to abolish the Good Friday Agreement? If so, then we can abolish the Protocol designed to protect it at the same time, can't we? If not, then sorry, but they have you by the testicles because of the GFA.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Pulpstar said:

    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not on FINA to prove the opposite.
    This kind of rule would still harm ciswomen - indeed athletes with high levels of testosterone are already being punished regardless of whether this is just a natural difference or due to transition.

    When we recognise that Michael Phelps is a genetic peculiarity that just happens to make him significantly better than most other people at swimming, we laud him and his achievements. When women (typically black women) have genetic peculiarities that just happens to make them significantly better than most other women at running or athletics, they are exiled and smeared - subject to intrusive testing and abuse.

    There is no way to regulate the bodies and hormones of women athletes that does not also increase the opportunities for discrimination or even abuse.
    It doesn't harm ciswomen because the test is not applicable to those with XX chromosones.
    How do you know someones chromosones until they are tested? You have to demand an intrusive test right at the start, and of course, people will start accusing people of not being ciswomen when they start losing to women who may look masculine, or are just better athletes, as we are already seeing in the US where they've introduced literal body examinations for young girls in sports. You are starting from a position of demanding genetic integrity and body policing of every woman who engages in sports...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited October 2022
    Heathener said:

    I see that pb's obsession with trans issues, which mirrors the geriatric tory membership, goes on.

    Seriously, all of you, get over it and let people live their lives.

    You're on the wrong side of history. You have a choice: either go with the flow or become embittered old fools like Leon.

    Opponents of communism were likewise meant to be on the wrong side of history.

    Given the troubles that Mermaids and the Tavistock Centre have got themselves into, I don't think that history is moving in the direction you would like it to.
  • .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    It literally is to do with what you wrote.

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised [to natural male levels] for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process [such as being male], should you really be forever banned [from female sport]?

    I would characterise it as saying if someone XY has medical proof that their testosterone has never been above 2.5, then they could perhaps be able to compete in women's sport, but if they can't then they should forever banned from competing in women's sport, yes. Women's sport is for women with women's hormones all their life.
    It isn’t “literally” what I wrote. You’ve added commentary that changes the meaning. All those bits in []s.
    It doesn't change the meaning. The 3 [] were all part of the conversation.

    The conversation was about women's sport.

    The testosterone level being raised [to natural male levels] is what the measurement is about.

    And the natural process we're talking about, is being naturally male.

    None of that changes the meaning, it just spells out quite clearly what we're talking about.

    If you're not talking about women's sport, then there's no issue. There's no reason a trans person with XY chromosomes should be banned from male sport, nobody has an issue with men's sport being open to all.

    If you meant something completely different, then what natural process [other than being male] and what ban [other than from female sport] are you talking about?
    Most of the time, the usual reason why testosterone levels are raised are because someone is male, but that’s not the only natural process that can raise testosterone levels. The problem with rules, and my point was about how to write the rules, is that they have to work for everyone, including complicated cases, and not just as political polemic. It is unusual but possible for someone to have a Y chromosome, but generally low levels of testosterone and to present as female, and then to have a brief elevation in their testosterone level.
    And if they have a Y chromosome then they would need to compete in open or men's sport, unless they could prove they can meet the conditions set in the requirement.

    If they can't compete in men's sport, then they can still live their lives however they please, but they won't be able to compete against XX women without meeting the criteria that exists.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Lee Anderson has weighed in on Eddie Izzard’s latest struggle – to become a Labour MP. It probably doesn’t come as a surprise that Lee isn’t, well, exactly on-board with the idea. He told Mike Graham:

    “… I think [Labour] have got 51% of their MPs now, in Parliament, are females. Now, if Eddie Izzard gets elected, I don’t know whether that increases or decreases the percentage. Because I’m not sure what he’s all about, Keir Starmer’s not sure what he’s all about. And you know what, the old traditional working class Labour voters will take a look at Eddie Izzard and think, y’know, is that what’s coming to Parliament? […] I’m going to be honest now, controversial as always, if he does get elected and I’m still here, I shouldn’t be following him into the toilets.”

    Mr Anderson will not be in Parliament after the next GE so irrelevant what he thinks. (I am no Eddie Izzard fan either BTW)
  • nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    As always compromise is needed, and the DUP refuse to compromise. Does the entire community allow all its services and the GFA and peace be held hostage by a minority group? Whilst there has to be consensus, there can't practically be a veto whether that is exercised by the DUP or SF.

    What the government need to tell these orange-sash wazzocks is that in the new assembly to be elected, they can choose not to sit but the assembly will go on. At which point they will sit.
    There can practically be a veto, that is the entire point of the Good Friday Agreement!

    Considering the entire point of the Protocol/Backstop drama was supposedly "to protect the Good Friday Agreement" based on concerns of the nationalists, you have no right to object to the unionists using the Good Friday Agreement to protect their own concerns, do you?

    If you're saying you want to abolish the Good Friday Agreement then make the case for that. If you do, then it no longer needs protecting, so the Protocol can be abolished with it and NI can come lockstep in line with the rest of the post-Brexit UK, I'm sure the DUP would be delighted with that, but I'm not so sure Sinn Fein would be. Or Brussels.

    So any compromise, if you're not prepared to abolish the Good Friday Agreement, needs to be a compromise that meets the concerns of the DUP.

    @bondegezou asked if I support continued enforced consociationalism? Well no, it wouldn't be my choice, but it was the choice made in the Good Friday Agreement and it is the choice that has led to where we are today. An abolition of the Good Friday Agreement/consociationalism should be done with the agreement of both communities, which means both the DUP and Sinn Fein would have a right to veto the abolition of their veto, which brings us back to square one.
    The breakdown of power sharing in Northern Ireland is a 'feature' of Brexit, not a 'bug'.
    No the breakdown of power sharing in Northern Ireland is a feature of the Good Friday Agreement.

    Just as it was in 2000, 2001 (twice), 2001 - 2007, 2008 and 2017 - 2020. None of that was due to Brexit or the NI protocol which has only been an issue since 2020.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,542

    nico679 said:

    The DUP can’t seem to get it through their thick bigoted heads .

    Actions have consequences . They backed a hard Brexit knowing the damage it would do . And when they had influence over the Tories they continued to back that .

    So they can fxck right off !

    You can't get it through your thick, bigoted head that the Good Friday Agreement means power sharing across the communities, not telling one community to f*** off.

    That means that the DUP need to be made happy, or there can be no Northern Irish Assembly and no Northern Irish Government.

    So no, they can't f*** right off just because you're bitter that you lost the EU referendum. They backed Brexit knowing the GFA gives them power to shut down Stormont if they're not treated with respect and they're well within their rights to exercise that power.
    As always compromise is needed, and the DUP refuse to compromise. Does the entire community allow all its services and the GFA and peace be held hostage by a minority group? Whilst there has to be consensus, there can't practically be a veto whether that is exercised by the DUP or SF.

    What the government need to tell these orange-sash wazzocks is that in the new assembly to be elected, they can choose not to sit but the assembly will go on. At which point they will sit.
    There can practically be a veto, that is the entire point of the Good Friday Agreement!

    Considering the entire point of the Protocol/Backstop drama was supposedly "to protect the Good Friday Agreement" based on concerns of the nationalists, you have no right to object to the unionists using the Good Friday Agreement to protect their own concerns, do you?

    If you're saying you want to abolish the Good Friday Agreement then make the case for that. If you do, then it no longer needs protecting, so the Protocol can be abolished with it and NI can come lockstep in line with the rest of the post-Brexit UK, I'm sure the DUP would be delighted with that, but I'm not so sure Sinn Fein would be. Or Brussels.

    So any compromise, if you're not prepared to abolish the Good Friday Agreement, needs to be a compromise that meets the concerns of the DUP.

    @bondegezou asked if I support continued enforced consociationalism? Well no, it wouldn't be my choice, but it was the choice made in the Good Friday Agreement and it is the choice that has led to where we are today. An abolition of the Good Friday Agreement/consociationalism should be done with the agreement of both communities, which means both the DUP and Sinn Fein would have a right to veto the abolition of their veto, which brings us back to square one.
    The breakdown of power sharing in Northern Ireland is a 'feature' of Brexit, not a 'bug'.
    The breakdown of power sharing has happened due to the Protocol, not Brexit. Not a single party are refusing to sit in Stormont due to Brexit.

    The Protocol was demanded because of the desire of the Nationalists and the EU and Remainers to "protect the Good Friday Agreement". Now they're crying crocodile tears that the DUP are exercising their veto given to them by the Good Friday Agreement. What a shame!
    I’m sorry that’s utterly ludicrous. The NI protocol wouldn’t have been needed if the UK had remained in the EU .
  • 148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    .

    kinabalu said:
    It's a testerone bar of 2.5 nmol/L for women's competitions, which applies if you have XY chromosomes.
    The problem with that is testosterone has an impact on your body long after its no longer detectable within the body. Someone who has been through puberty with high testosterone, who then suddenly has low testosterone, does not have the same muscles as those who have always had low testosterone.

    That bar should be a lifetime bar. If you've ever been higher than that XY, then you should be barred for life from women's competitions, just as those who engage in serious doping face lifetime bans. As that's exactly what it is.
    How is that practical as a rule? I can’t, in most cases, know what someone’s testosterone was at some arbitrary period in the past. So don’t you need to operationalise your proposal in some other way?

    Also, it seems rather over the top. If one’s testosterone level was raised for a few weeks a decade ago by some natural process, should you really be forever banned?
    XY is male, and we're talking about women's sport. Yes if you had male levels of testosterone, naturally, a decade ago then yes you should be forever banned from competitive women's sport.

    Act as a woman all you want, be treated with respect all you want, be called whatever pronoun you want. But don't be classed as a real woman in competitive women's sport, as you're not a woman and had natural, male testosterone.
    You haven’t answered either of my paragraphs. Are you planning to do so?
    I did answer it. Your second paragraph was should you really be forever banned [from womens sport] for having natural [male] hormones, and the answer is yes.

    As for the first one as to how to know someone's testosterone at any period in the past, considering all males typically have those levels at age 13+ I would say anyone who is male at 13 should be classed as having had those levels, unless there is exceptional medical evidence to say otherwise.

    If a man wants to transition to be classed as a woman then he should be able to, and he should be able to be called her if he wants to, but he shouldn't be competitively classed as a woman, as he's not.
    Your characterisation of my second paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    With respect to the first paragraph, you’ve not explained how you are going to operationalise your rule. You started by talking about 2.5, but what you’re now proposing is basically unrelated to 2.5.
    The operationalisation of the rules is that it is incumbent on XY individuals to prove they have

    i. Complete androgen insensitivity

    or

    ii. Have never gone beyond tanner stage ii puberty AND have always had T below 2.5 nmol/l

    The emphasis is on an XY individual to prove to FINA these facts, not on FINA to prove the opposite.
    This kind of rule would still harm ciswomen - indeed athletes with high levels of testosterone are already being punished regardless of whether this is just a natural difference or due to transition.

    When we recognise that Michael Phelps is a genetic peculiarity that just happens to make him significantly better than most other people at swimming, we laud him and his achievements. When women (typically black women) have genetic peculiarities that just happens to make them significantly better than most other women at running or athletics, they are exiled and smeared - subject to intrusive testing and abuse.

    There is no way to regulate the bodies and hormones of women athletes that does not also increase the opportunities for discrimination or even abuse.
    It doesn't harm ciswomen because the test is not applicable to those with XX chromosones.
    How do you know someones chromosones until they are tested? You have to demand an intrusive test right at the start, and of course, people will start accusing people of not being ciswomen when they start losing to women who may look masculine, or are just better athletes, as we are already seeing in the US where they've introduced literal body examinations for young girls in sports. You are starting from a position of demanding genetic integrity and body policing of every woman who engages in sports...
    Athletes are subject to blood tests all the time.

    If men stopped trying to compete in women's sport, then there wouldn't be a requirement to try to ensure women's sport exists for women alone. Unfortunately people try to cheat the system quite regularly, but that's why competitive sport has blood tests.
This discussion has been closed.