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 .
The NI Protocol wouldn't have been needed if we'd left the EU with a no deal hard Brexit either.
Thanks. But that's a chunky one. What's the upshot?
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?
But how do you know if someone is a woman without first testing them, examining them and defining what is "normal" chemically for a woman that doesn't also a) eliminate some ciswomen or b) lead to horrifically intrusive policing of womens' bodies?
If any woman turns up to a sports team and says she wants to play, does she have to have a chromosomal screening? Does she have to have a body examination? If not, because this would only apply to transwomen, how do you learn who is trans? Do you ask them? If you suspect they are trans and they say they aren't, are you allowed to disbelieve them and test them anyway? How would this practically work?
All I see is layer after layer of intense scrutiny on the bodies of women and young girls that leads to intrusive and unnecessary acts of body policing. I have shared here before the stories of girls in the US have literal genital inspections because a parent of another child was unhappy her daughter lost a swim meet and accused a girl of being trans. That is the logical conclusion of this kind of policy.
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.
Though I should add for clarity that I do not think the NI protocol should be dumped. Quite apart from everything else we should not renege on our treaty commitments.
Thanks. But that's a chunky one. What's the upshot?
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 give blood and urine samples all the time. A chromatic check is not difficult to carry out with a hair sample or some such. And I think athletes wishing to compete in the female categories will be happy to give such samples to protect the integrity of their sport. Indeed FINA's guidelines suggest anyone achieving a female WR probably does have their chromosones checked.
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)
Funnily enough I am a massive Eddie Izzard fan even though I disagree completely with him on most political issues. I think he is one of the most talented and original comics of our generation.
Still wouldn't vote for him though - although for the record I would have no issue with following him into a toilet.
Thanks. But that's a chunky one. What's the upshot?
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?
But how do you know if someone is a woman without first testing them, examining them and defining what is "normal" chemically for a woman that doesn't also a) eliminate some ciswomen or b) lead to horrifically intrusive policing of womens' bodies?
If any woman turns up to a sports team and says she wants to play, does she have to have a chromosomal screening? Does she have to have a body examination? If not, because this would only apply to transwomen, how do you learn who is trans? Do you ask them? If you suspect they are trans and they say they aren't, are you allowed to disbelieve them and test them anyway? How would this practically work?
All I see is layer after layer of intense scrutiny on the bodies of women and young girls that leads to intrusive and unnecessary acts of body policing. I have shared here before the stories of girls in the US have literal genital inspections because a parent of another child was unhappy her daughter lost a swim meet and accused a girl of being trans. That is the logical conclusion of this kind of policy.
"literal genital inspections" are not required & not helpful as per FINA's guidelines since an individual can present external female genitalia but have internal testes. So no need to worry on that front. If you come packing like Mark Spitz up in your cossie to a meet a hair sample might be required to check your chromosones though.
Thanks. But that's a chunky one. What's the upshot?
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?
But how do you know if someone is a woman without first testing them, examining them and defining what is "normal" chemically for a woman that doesn't also a) eliminate some ciswomen or b) lead to horrifically intrusive policing of womens' bodies?
If any woman turns up to a sports team and says she wants to play, does she have to have a chromosomal screening? Does she have to have a body examination? If not, because this would only apply to transwomen, how do you learn who is trans? Do you ask them? If you suspect they are trans and they say they aren't, are you allowed to disbelieve them and test them anyway? How would this practically work?
All I see is layer after layer of intense scrutiny on the bodies of women and young girls that leads to intrusive and unnecessary acts of body policing. I have shared here before the stories of girls in the US have literal genital inspections because a parent of another child was unhappy her daughter lost a swim meet and accused a girl of being trans. That is the logical conclusion of this kind of policy.
Competitive athletes are subject to blood tests all the time.
If a blood test reveals doping, or that a "woman" is a man, then they should be disqualified, stripped of any medals and banned from competing.
If men stop trying to compete in women's sport, then there'd be no reason for this policy, just as if drug cheats stopped existing, then there'd be no reason for blood tests for that either.
If someone makes an accusation a fellow competitor is trans that should be handled using the same procedure as someone alleging that a fellow competitor is abusing steroids.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
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!
Which is why it will go back to the voters for another election.
If the voters approve of the DUPs stance then that will affect the negotiations, and if they don't, then a chastened DUP may have to find a way to restore power-sharing.
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!
Which is why it will go back to the voters for another election.
If the voters approve of the DUPs stance then that will affect the negotiations, and if they don't, then a chastened DUP may have to find a way to restore power-sharing.
Indeed, and if the DUP come first in the Unionist vote, then their voters have approved of their stance. That's the way GFA power sharing works.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
Except that it wasn't randomly brought up, it was in response to a specific political development.
“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.
They hugely increased investment in UK oil and gas which in turn leads to more UK employment and energy security. Isn't that the desired aim here? For once the government has worked out a tax structure that encourages business investment, let's try not to let the same short termism take over and throw it away.
Thanks. But that's a chunky one. What's the upshot?
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?
But how do you know if someone is a woman without first testing them, examining them and defining what is "normal" chemically for a woman that doesn't also a) eliminate some ciswomen or b) lead to horrifically intrusive policing of womens' bodies?
If any woman turns up to a sports team and says she wants to play, does she have to have a chromosomal screening? Does she have to have a body examination? If not, because this would only apply to transwomen, how do you learn who is trans? Do you ask them? If you suspect they are trans and they say they aren't, are you allowed to disbelieve them and test them anyway? How would this practically work?
All I see is layer after layer of intense scrutiny on the bodies of women and young girls that leads to intrusive and unnecessary acts of body policing. I have shared here before the stories of girls in the US have literal genital inspections because a parent of another child was unhappy her daughter lost a swim meet and accused a girl of being trans. That is the logical conclusion of this kind of policy.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
Reposting this from the last thread, as the linked essay seemed to me (FWIW) to be an interesting lens on Russia imperialism, and I posted it in the early hours, so it likely didn't get much notice.
The confusion stems partially from the nature of Russian colonialism. Over the centuries, while European powers conquered overseas territories, Russia ran a land empire that absorbed its neighbors. While Europeans instilled the notion that their subjects were “different” from them, Russians conquered using another device: “sameness.”
“Russians chose ‘sameness’ as an instrument of domination. The message of Western colonialism was: ‘you are not able to be like us,’ while the message of Russian colonialism was ‘you are not allowed to be different from us,’” explained Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko at the recent Tbilisi Storytelling Festival (ZEG) co-hosted by Coda Story, the newsroom that I run.
The idea of “sameness as an instrument of domination” also explains why most well-meaning Russians I meet seem weirdly unaware of their country being perceived as a colonial master....
The whole essay (it's not particularly long) is worth reading.
“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.
What would Shell pay a windfall tax on? Their UK production is around 87,000 BOE per day (on which they are already paying 70% tax). Which is a whole 2.9% of their daily worldwide production. And all of that production is already subject to taxes in the countries where they are producing.
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.…
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?
Thanks. But that's a chunky one. What's the upshot?
It's effectively a transwomen in the women's category ban.
Ok right. For swimming, I think? And other sports will make their own decisions. Eg rugby might differ from golf from equestrian. And we let them do so. Don't see any better alternative.
Great call with Australian PM @AlboMP this morning.
Geography is no barrier to the deep ties of friendship our countries share, as we work together to strengthen our common security, boost trade and support Ukraine.
Looking forward to meeting Anthony at the G20 next month.
Great call with Australian PM @AlboMP this morning.
Geography is no barrier to the deep ties of friendship our countries share, as we work together to strengthen our common security, boost trade and support Ukraine.
Looking forward to meeting Anthony at the G20 next month.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse: Berlin appears poised to allow a Chinese-owned firm to buy a German chip factory despite warnings from the domestic intelligence agency @handelsblatt
Great call with Australian PM @AlboMP this morning.
Geography is no barrier to the deep ties of friendship our countries share, as we work together to strengthen our common security, boost trade and support Ukraine.
Looking forward to meeting Anthony at the G20 next month.
So far: Zelensky Sturgeon Drakeford Biden Martin Von der Leyden Albanese
Macron & Scholz were in a meeting yesterday…
Braverman (any more skeltons?) Zelensky Braverman (you are in) Sturgeon Drakeford Braverman (whats this multiple infringement thing?) Biden Braverman OK i accept your word you are in Martin Von der Leyden Braverman (Can you resign please this is embarassing) Albanese Wheres Braverman?
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
You are wrong. For the well off, perhaps retired old (white but who cares) men on PB it provides a great opportunity to opine about a subject that is very close to their (our) hearts.
The intel 'take' goes to the member nations and it's up to them what they do with it. I presume Poland and Czechia are the conduits to Ukraine.
More Americans on the crew than I would have expected as the they have their own E-3 fleet. There is no way the rest of NATO could sustain this effort without them
Obviously nothing wrong with the mess at Geilenkirchen.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
Fine it matters to them but I worked in a job where I had to read hundreds of letters from people on both sides of the debate. I sat there at times and thought that from these letters you’d think that thousands of trans men were battering down the doors of women’s shelters or masturbating in women’s toilets. Or conversely that 90% of women wanted trans people wiped from the face of the earth. I just think that because of social media we’ve become obsessed with a tiny number of difficult situations to the detriment of the vast majority of trans people and women who will never remotely bother or threaten each other.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Another problem is the strands get all cluttered up. Eg the Scottish change is about the process to obtain a GRC. You can support that - and I know this because I do! - as a humane and practical reform - without signing up to "sex doesn't matter" or that sex should be obliterated as a concept in favour of gender.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
One of the more interesting ways to cheat is "blood doping". For example: "Austrian cross-country skier Max Hauke was as one of five athletes arrested in Seefeld, Austria, which is hosting the Nordic World Ski Championships.
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.
Though I should add for clarity that I do not think the NI protocol should be dumped. Quite apart from everything else we should not renege on our treaty commitments.
Personally I would swap the entire population of Northern Ireland for the population of Israel and Palestine.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
It does matter and imo it's good that Scotland is doing the reform that England shelved. We'll see how it operates in practice. Much is floated as to the negative consequences. Ok, proof of the pudding. Will it cause serious problems and be reversed? Or will it - as in the other countries who've done it - work out ok?
The intel 'take' goes to the member nations and it's up to them what they do with it. I presume Poland and Czechia are the conduits to Ukraine.
More Americans on the crew than I would have expected as the they have their own E-3 fleet. There is no way the rest of NATO could sustain this effort without them
Obviously nothing wrong with the mess at Geilenkirchen.
The Americans complain that even when other NATO countries are nominally providing equipment and capabilities to joint efforts, they have to support them with maintenance, manpower etc.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
Fine it matters to them but I worked in a job where I had to read hundreds of letters from people on both sides of the debate. I sat there at times and thought that from these letters you’d think that thousands of trans men were battering down the doors of women’s shelters or masturbating in women’s toilets. Or conversely that 90% of women wanted trans people wiped from the face of the earth. I just think that because of social media we’ve become obsessed with a tiny number of difficult situations to the detriment of the vast majority of trans people and women who will never remotely bother or threaten each other.
it is a real issue for womens sport though of which far more than 1% of the population is concerned with. At elite level the top finalists in say athletics will all be within about 1-2% per cent of each other in terms of time . So its just fairness that means trans atheltes cannot be allowed to compete in womens events as the average percentage difference between a male and female at the top end is at least 10% in time. Sometimes however much inclusivity you want to create, practicality gets in the way as it does in elite sport
Lula is in to 1.46 now at Betfair to win back the Brazilian presidency on Sunday.
He was only 1.57% short of winning outright in R1.
This is mostly now about where voters who backed the 3rd (4.2%) and 4th (3.0%) candidates go. Both have endorsed Lula.
The 4.2% one is centrist Simone Tebet. She sometimes calls herself a feminist but is fairly conservative. She is a Christian and she has talked about women a lot and may have got many of her votes from women who are not particularly leftwing. Few women will vote Bolsonaro in R2 who didn't in R1. Perhaps if they voted Tebet they will won't much enjoy voting for Lula, but they'd enjoy voting for Bolsonaro a lot less. He has on more than one occasion been fined or ordered to pay damages for sexist remarks he has made.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
Except that it wasn't randomly brought up, it was in response to a specific political development.
Yes, the Scottish reform. Which was promptly linked to lots of things that it doesn't touch.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
I just think that because of social media we’ve become obsessed with a tiny number of difficult situations to the detriment of the vast majority of trans people and women who will never remotely bother or threaten each other.
The role of social media has gone woefully unresearched in the explosion in the number of adolescent females presenting with gender dysphoria and being drawn into the maw of the “affirmative care” model.
There are several issues involved - how adult trans people can be treated with dignity and respect without infringing the rights of others. And how children have been caught up in a very poorly researched clinical pathway which some of them may come to regret.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
It does matter and imo it's good that Scotland is doing the reform that England shelved. We'll see how it operates in practice. Much is floated as to the negative consequences. Ok, proof of the pudding. Will it cause serious problems and be reversed? Or will it - as in the other countries who've done it - work out ok?
It won't be reversed, because anyone highlighting any problems that may arise will be howled down as "transphobic".
I've been off from work today, just saw the news that the ECB is going to keep its QE programme running until 2024. They are basically admitting defeat on inflation and accepted it is the lesser evil compared to Italy, Greece and Spain going bankrupt without ECB bond purchasing. Holidays in Europe are going to become a lot cheaper in 2023 if the BoE tightens and raises rates to ~4% by March as expected.
In general I'd love for an ECB bod to explain the point of raising interest rates and keeping QE going at the same time.
I've been off from work today, just saw the news that the ECB is going to keep its QE programme running until 2024. They are basically admitting defeat on inflation and accepted it is the lesser evil compared to Italy, Greece and Spain going bankrupt without ECB bond purchasing. Holidays in Europe are going to become a lot cheaper in 2023 if the BoE tightens and raises rates to ~4% by March as expected.
In general I'd love for an ECB bod to explain the point of raising interest rates and keeping QE going at the same time.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
It does matter and imo it's good that Scotland is doing the reform that England shelved. We'll see how it operates in practice. Much is floated as to the negative consequences. Ok, proof of the pudding. Will it cause serious problems and be reversed? Or will it - as in the other countries who've done it - work out ok?
It won't be reversed, because anyone highlighting any problems that may arise will be howled down as "transphobic".
You mean, like howling down any movement for Scottish independence as "anglophobic"?
Because that's what EVERY single development looks like these days - moderately specced, small detached or semis with practically no garden and lots of cgi imagery put up by Gleeson, Barratt, Persimmon, Avant or Redrow. They're all pretty much the same, executive is just marketing spin. This is pretty much every single new build in the UK.
Lol, that first one is on Edlington pit heap! That's not what you would call an "Executive" location. I'd want 10 foot high gates and an electrified fence.
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
I just think that because of social media we’ve become obsessed with a tiny number of difficult situations to the detriment of the vast majority of trans people and women who will never remotely bother or threaten each other.
The role of social media has gone woefully unresearched in the explosion in the number of adolescent females presenting with gender dysphoria and being drawn into the maw of the “affirmative care” model.
There are several issues involved - how adult trans people can be treated with dignity and respect without infringing the rights of others. And how children have been caught up in a very poorly researched clinical pathway which some of them may come to regret.
The Trans lobby’s “no debate” hasn’t helped.
One techie friend of mine says it's a feature, not a bug, of social media that it generates hate. Hate generates views, which generate advertising revenue.
The Conservative 2019GE vote is split Tory - Labour - Don't Know / Refused / Won't Vote 42-14-31 compared to 34-14-36 in the previous poll.
Just one poll, but interesting to see that the share directly switching to Labour hasn't budged at all so far.
Edit: SNP back to a 46-25 lead in Scotland.
Tbf transferees would be slowest to move, they are 'done' with the Tories and actively seeking change, that feeling wont shift overnight if at all. To avoid a Lab Maj, tories probably need to get their 2019 vote retention to near to matching Labour who will go ahead in seats on direct transferees. Tories will be 'back in the game' on 55% plus 2019 retention or so id guess
I think all you can glean from this is that it's going to be tight.
Generally it’s better for Dems to see higher turnout as there’s often an important gap between their registered voters and likely voters.
It does seem bizarre that voters might hand back the keys to the GOP who are intent on sabotaging the economy. They want to hold the debt ceiling increase hostage so they can force cuts to social security and Medicare .
All of a sudden they care about the debt ignoring that they added trillions to that for tax cuts for the richest under Trump .
The GOP are despicable and yet many vote for them even when it’s clear they’re voting against their own interests.
Italian 10y yields down 21bp on the news that the ECB will continue its QE scheme. Bond traders laughing all the way to the bank today, literally free money for them.
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)
Funnily enough I am a massive Eddie Izzard fan even though I disagree completely with him on most political issues. I think he is one of the most talented and original comics of our generation.
Still wouldn't vote for him though - although for the record I would have no issue with following him into a toilet.
In London, people following people into toilets is de rigueur, particularly on Thursday and Friday nights.
Scotland should simply self identify as independent. Everyone will use the right pronouns and all about Scotland,.
But, of course, it will effectively be pre-op (or referendum, as some people call it.) There will therefore be certain safe spaces - like the UN Chamber - that will not yet be open to Scotland.
O/T but I see that 538 now give the Republicans a 46% chance of taking the Senate. Effectively, now, it's a coin-toss.
The betting markets are still overly favouring the GOP, 1.6 Republican majority to lay.
Those are unattractive odds, although I would now make them slight favourites to win both Houses.
Though the 538 "polls only" model gives Republicans 34% chance of taking the senate.
There are, I think, only four seats left that could flip.
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.
That puts the Democrats on 51 seats if they win all four, and the Republicans on 53 seats if they win all four.
Nevada is too close to call. The Republicans have clear leads in the race for governor in Arizona and Georgia, and the Democrats have a clear lead in Pennsylvania. In the end, I think the number of ticket-splitters will be very small.
So, I'd favour the Republicans to win Georgia and Arizona, the Democrats to win Pennsylvania.
So, the Senate would go 51-2 Republican, 48-9 Democratic.
I have emerged from my car journey to learn that Cruella "Nothing to See Hear Oh No Siree" Braverman is now in hot water with ...(checks notes)... MI5.
Actually it would be quite funny if @KemiBadenoch came urgently to the House to clarify that @joannaccherry's legal action against Pink News didn't get to court because her case was so strong that Benjamin Cohen and his lawyers immediately caved, paying costs and damages
Scotland should simply self identify as independent. Everyone will use the right pronouns and all about Scotland,.
But, of course, it will effectively be pre-op (or referendum, as some people call it.) There will therefore be certain safe spaces - like the UN Chamber - that will not yet be open to Scotland.
OTOH, can you imagine how it would trigger the old farts on PB? You'd be modding left, right and centre all day.
O/T but I see that 538 now give the Republicans a 46% chance of taking the Senate. Effectively, now, it's a coin-toss.
The betting markets are still overly favouring the GOP, 1.6 Republican majority to lay.
Those are unattractive odds, although I would now make them slight favourites to win both Houses.
Though the 538 "polls only" model gives Republicans 34% chance of taking the senate.
There are, I think, only four seats left that could flip.
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.
That puts the Democrats on 51 seats if they win all four, and the Republicans on 53 seats if they win all four.
Nevada is too close to call. The Republicans have clear leads in the race for governor in Arizona and Georgia, and the Democrats have a clear lead in Pennsylvania. In the end, I think the number of ticket-splitters will be very small.
So, I'd favour the Republicans to win Georgia and Arizona, the Democrats to win Pennsylvania.
So, the Senate would go 51-2 Republican, 48-9 Democratic.
O/T but I see that 538 now give the Republicans a 46% chance of taking the Senate. Effectively, now, it's a coin-toss.
The betting markets are still overly favouring the GOP, 1.6 Republican majority to lay.
Those are unattractive odds, although I would now make them slight favourites to win both Houses.
Though the 538 "polls only" model gives Republicans 34% chance of taking the senate.
There are, I think, only four seats left that could flip.
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.
That puts the Democrats on 51 seats if they win all four, and the Republicans on 53 seats if they win all four.
Nevada is too close to call. The Republicans have clear leads in the race for governor in Arizona and Georgia, and the Democrats have a clear lead in Pennsylvania. In the end, I think the number of ticket-splitters will be very small.
So, I'd favour the Republicans to win Georgia and Arizona, the Democrats to win Pennsylvania.
So, the Senate would go 51-2 Republican, 48-9 Democratic.
It is worth noting that Georgia is highly likely to go to a run off due to the Libertarian candidate picking up 3% or so.
That means a Walker v Warnock runoff, where Walker won't benefit from Kemp's coattails.
O/T but I see that 538 now give the Republicans a 46% chance of taking the Senate. Effectively, now, it's a coin-toss.
The betting markets are still overly favouring the GOP, 1.6 Republican majority to lay.
Those are unattractive odds, although I would now make them slight favourites to win both Houses.
Though the 538 "polls only" model gives Republicans 34% chance of taking the senate.
There are, I think, only four seats left that could flip.
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.
That puts the Democrats on 51 seats if they win all four, and the Republicans on 53 seats if they win all four.
Nevada is too close to call. The Republicans have clear leads in the race for governor in Arizona and Georgia, and the Democrats have a clear lead in Pennsylvania. In the end, I think the number of ticket-splitters will be very small.
So, I'd favour the Republicans to win Georgia and Arizona, the Democrats to win Pennsylvania.
So, the Senate would go 51-2 Republican, 48-9 Democratic.
Actually it would be quite funny if @KemiBadenoch came urgently to the House to clarify that @joannaccherry's legal action against Pink News didn't get to court because her case was so strong that Benjamin Cohen and his lawyers immediately caved, paying costs and damages
O/T but I see that 538 now give the Republicans a 46% chance of taking the Senate. Effectively, now, it's a coin-toss.
The betting markets are still overly favouring the GOP, 1.6 Republican majority to lay.
Those are unattractive odds, although I would now make them slight favourites to win both Houses.
Though the 538 "polls only" model gives Republicans 34% chance of taking the senate.
There are, I think, only four seats left that could flip.
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.
That puts the Democrats on 51 seats if they win all four, and the Republicans on 53 seats if they win all four.
Nevada is too close to call. The Republicans have clear leads in the race for governor in Arizona and Georgia, and the Democrats have a clear lead in Pennsylvania. In the end, I think the number of ticket-splitters will be very small.
So, I'd favour the Republicans to win Georgia and Arizona, the Democrats to win Pennsylvania.
So, the Senate would go 51-2 Republican, 48-9 Democratic.
Scotland should simply self identify as independent. Everyone will use the right pronouns and all about Scotland,.
But, of course, it will effectively be pre-op (or referendum, as some people call it.) There will therefore be certain safe spaces - like the UN Chamber - that will not yet be open to Scotland.
OTOH, can you imagine how it would trigger the old farts on PB? You'd be modding left, right and centre all day.
I assume you are including Malcolm in the old fart list? He is most definitely the most reactionary and angry old fart who ever posts on here. He has got such a chip on his shoulder and is so pig ignorant of his own country's history that he actually believes he is living in a colony 🤣🤣🤣🤣
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)
Funnily enough I am a massive Eddie Izzard fan even though I disagree completely with him on most political issues. I think he is one of the most talented and original comics of our generation.
Still wouldn't vote for him though - although for the record I would have no issue with following him into a toilet.
In London, people following people into toilets is de rigueur, particularly on Thursday and Friday nights.
Only for you crazy carefree kids. Us oldies tend to be a little more reserved.
"A woman has been found guilty of murdering and decapitating her friend in order to inherit her estate. Jemma Mitchell, 38, killed Mee Kuen Chong at the 67-year-old's north-west London home in June 2021, before putting her body into a suitcase and driving to Devon to dump it. Ms Chong's headless remains were found by holidaymakers in Salcombe, 200 miles from her home in Wembley. Mitchell forged a will in an attempt to gain money for renovations to her home."
Lula is in to 1.46 now at Betfair to win back the Brazilian presidency on Sunday.
He was only 1.57% short of winning outright in R1.
This is mostly now about where voters who backed the 3rd (4.2%) and 4th (3.0%) candidates go. Both have endorsed Lula.
The 4.2% one is centrist Simone Tebet. She sometimes calls herself a feminist but is fairly conservative. She is a Christian and she has talked about women a lot and may have got many of her votes from women who are not particularly leftwing. Few women will vote Bolsonaro in R2 who didn't in R1. Perhaps if they voted Tebet they will won't much enjoy voting for Lula, but they'd enjoy voting for Bolsonaro a lot less. He has on more than one occasion been fined or ordered to pay damages for sexist remarks he has made.
Reposting this from the last thread, as the linked essay seemed to me (FWIW) to be an interesting lens on Russia imperialism, and I posted it in the early hours, so it likely didn't get much notice.
The confusion stems partially from the nature of Russian colonialism. Over the centuries, while European powers conquered overseas territories, Russia ran a land empire that absorbed its neighbors. While Europeans instilled the notion that their subjects were “different” from them, Russians conquered using another device: “sameness.”
“Russians chose ‘sameness’ as an instrument of domination. The message of Western colonialism was: ‘you are not able to be like us,’ while the message of Russian colonialism was ‘you are not allowed to be different from us,’” explained Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko at the recent Tbilisi Storytelling Festival (ZEG) co-hosted by Coda Story, the newsroom that I run.
The idea of “sameness as an instrument of domination” also explains why most well-meaning Russians I meet seem weirdly unaware of their country being perceived as a colonial master....
The whole essay (it's not particularly long) is worth reading.
Yes, that's an interesting point, and a further point is that "sameness" will be judged differently by different ethnic groups and individuals. To take a peaceful example, consider English attitudes to Scottish nationalism. Most English people (and many Scots) think we're all part of the same country, with regional variation as with Cornwall vs Yorkshire and Orkneys vs Glasgow. The idea of their splitting off seems somewhere between "a pity" to "a disaster". But many Scots feel they're distinctively different, and should have their own government. Neither opinion is obviously wrong or immoral - they reflect different family backgrounds and life experiences, and actually a lot of people don't have that strong an opinion about who governs where. What would be immoral would be if anyone contemplated killing each other over it, which is why Putin's war is so repulsive.
In general attempts to perpetuate division seem unhealthy, so I'm against Scottish, English, Ukrainian or Russian nationalism insofar as they attempt to create an artificial "us and them" distinction. Like anyone sane I'm also against fighting a war over it. That doesn't mean that we have to sign up to Ukrainian nationalism either, and defeating the invasion is much more important than insisting that Ukraine should rule Crimea because Krushchev redrew the boundaries. The West needs to make that distinction clear - we'll help defend Ukraine indefinitely from the current invasion, but we aren't necessarily on board with years of war to gain every inch of claimed territory.
How shit are Pakistan 3 off 3 balls becomes 3 needed off 1
Run out going for 2 off the last ball of the game - double deja vu.
What a match.
You have to feel for Pakistan though. They've served up classics in consecutive games and lost them both. At a time when the whole country could definitely do with some good news.
Actually it would be quite funny if @KemiBadenoch came urgently to the House to clarify that @joannaccherry's legal action against Pink News didn't get to court because her case was so strong that Benjamin Cohen and his lawyers immediately caved, paying costs and damages
I've written to @KemiBadenoch regarding her inaccurate comments in @HouseofCommons, in which she used parliamentary privilege to spread misinformation about @benjamincohen & @PinkNews I'm calling on her to follow ministerial code and return to the chamber to correct the record👇🏾
In the interests of accuracy: do you accept that PN printed and tweeted a defamatory story about @joannaccherry, & then retracted & apologised on threat of suit? Some might think that more important than whether a writ had to be served. https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1585245802921762816…
Scotland should simply self identify as independent. Everyone will use the right pronouns and all about Scotland,.
But, of course, it will effectively be pre-op (or referendum, as some people call it.) There will therefore be certain safe spaces - like the UN Chamber - that will not yet be open to Scotland.
OTOH, can you imagine how it would trigger the old farts on PB? You'd be modding left, right and centre all day.
It's not too different to the status quo. Scotland has its own football team, legal and education systems, flag, etc. The main thing missing is for a new SBC to join the EBU so that there would be a Scottish entry in Eurovision.
"A woman has been found guilty of murdering and decapitating her friend in order to inherit her estate. Jemma Mitchell, 38, killed Mee Kuen Chong at the 67-year-old's north-west London home in June 2021, before putting her body into a suitcase and driving to Devon to dump it. Ms Chong's headless remains were found by holidaymakers in Salcombe, 200 miles from her home in Wembley. Mitchell forged a will in an attempt to gain money for renovations to her home."
The police don’t know who this male accused of exposing his penis to two teenagers is, so they have no idea of his preferred pronouns. Yet they err on side of caution to avoid offending him over clear language to assist in identifying a male sex offender. See the problem?
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.
Part of my life is discussing ideas (and events and people) on this website.
Why does that make you so bitter?
We're all free to discuss anything we like here (subject to the usual limits). But like Heathener I do think we're marginalising ourselves by obsessing about trans issues which I'd guess only 1% of the population ever consider at all.
I’m not sure “women’s rights” is a minority concern, and discussion of a bill going through the Scottish Parliament today is hardly obsessing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
The problem with the trans debate is that everyone discusses margins within margins. Most trans people ask for nothing else other than to live how they want and be called what they want. Most women will never encounter a trans person in a remotely threatening or unsettling context. There are a few tricky edge cases such as sports, women’s refuges etc but the amount of people involved in no way justifies the amount of time and vitriol that goes into the debate.
Yet, it matters enough for an SNP minister to have just resigned over the issue.
It does matter and imo it's good that Scotland is doing the reform that England shelved. We'll see how it operates in practice. Much is floated as to the negative consequences. Ok, proof of the pudding. Will it cause serious problems and be reversed? Or will it - as in the other countries who've done it - work out ok?
It won't be reversed, because anyone highlighting any problems that may arise will be howled down as "transphobic".
That's just setting it up as "only one correct view" ... yours.
The police don’t know who this male accused of exposing his penis to two teenagers is, so they have no idea of his preferred pronouns. Yet they err on side of caution to avoid offending him over clear language to assist in identifying a male sex offender. See the problem?
Has to be said, he doesn't appear to have *needed* to dress as a woman to do those things. They could have been done equally well as a man (particularly if wearing a kilt). So I'm not sure how that later tweet is relevant.
Actually it would be quite funny if @KemiBadenoch came urgently to the House to clarify that @joannaccherry's legal action against Pink News didn't get to court because her case was so strong that Benjamin Cohen and his lawyers immediately caved, paying costs and damages
I've written to @KemiBadenoch regarding her inaccurate comments in @HouseofCommons, in which she used parliamentary privilege to spread misinformation about @benjamincohen & @PinkNews I'm calling on her to follow ministerial code and return to the chamber to correct the record👇🏾
In the interests of accuracy: do you accept that PN printed and tweeted a defamatory story about @joannaccherry, & then retracted & apologised on threat of suit? Some might think that more important than whether a writ had to be served. https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1585245802921762816…
Scotland should simply self identify as independent. Everyone will use the right pronouns and all about Scotland,.
But, of course, it will effectively be pre-op (or referendum, as some people call it.) There will therefore be certain safe spaces - like the UN Chamber - that will not yet be open to Scotland.
OTOH, can you imagine how it would trigger the old farts on PB? You'd be modding left, right and centre all day.
I assume you are including Malcolm in the old fart list? He is most definitely the most reactionary and angry old fart who ever posts on here. He has got such a chip on his shoulder and is so pig ignorant of his own country's history that he actually believes he is living in a colony 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@foremain You really are an obnoxious piece of shit
Scotland should simply self identify as independent. Everyone will use the right pronouns and all about Scotland,.
But, of course, it will effectively be pre-op (or referendum, as some people call it.) There will therefore be certain safe spaces - like the UN Chamber - that will not yet be open to Scotland.
@rcs1000 Sounds sensible to me. SNP are in with establishment now so it will need to be done some other way for sure unless teh whole rotten lot at teh top are ousted. GRA will likely do for them.
Comments
Why does that make you so bitter?
If any woman turns up to a sports team and says she wants to play, does she have to have a chromosomal screening? Does she have to have a body examination? If not, because this would only apply to transwomen, how do you learn who is trans? Do you ask them? If you suspect they are trans and they say they aren't, are you allowed to disbelieve them and test them anyway? How would this practically work?
All I see is layer after layer of intense scrutiny on the bodies of women and young girls that leads to intrusive and unnecessary acts of body policing. I have shared here before the stories of girls in the US have literal genital inspections because a parent of another child was unhappy her daughter lost a swim meet and accused a girl of being trans. That is the logical conclusion of this kind of policy.
Indeed FINA's guidelines suggest anyone achieving a female WR probably does have their chromosones checked.
Still wouldn't vote for him though - although for the record I would have no issue with following him into a toilet.
If you come packing like Mark Spitz up in your cossie to a meet a hair sample might be required to check your chromosones though.
If a blood test reveals doping, or that a "woman" is a man, then they should be disqualified, stripped of any medals and banned from competing.
If men stop trying to compete in women's sport, then there'd be no reason for this policy, just as if drug cheats stopped existing, then there'd be no reason for blood tests for that either.
If someone makes an accusation a fellow competitor is trans that should be handled using the same procedure as someone alleging that a fellow competitor is abusing steroids.
If the voters approve of the DUPs stance then that will affect the negotiations, and if they don't, then a chastened DUP may have to find a way to restore power-sharing.
Personally I find it concerning that Scotland is continuing the practices of the discredited Tavistock and will take a year to “consider” the Cass Review. At least NHS England has acted promptly.
The Children and Young People's Commissioner has been accused of risking the health of children for "political expediency" after he refused to push for rapid changes to transgender health care in Scotland.
A report on care practices in the NHS in England and Wales concluded that many children who believe they are trans are going through a "transient phase" and any steps to socially transition should be taken only when necessary.….
The Scottish Government has said services have a year to consider the findings of the research from the Cass Review that led to some gender identity clinics being closed down in England. The move has been criticised as too little too late for kids already in the system.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/childrens-commissioner-accused-risking-health-28334065.amp
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/26/opinions/russia-georgia-colonialism-anxieties-antelava/index.html
...“They are victims,” a British journalist friend covering the Russian exodus, argued at a recent dinner party in Tbilisi. “They are, but they are also the perpetrators,” said the host.
The confusion stems partially from the nature of Russian colonialism. Over the centuries, while European powers conquered overseas territories, Russia ran a land empire that absorbed its neighbors. While Europeans instilled the notion that their subjects were “different” from them, Russians conquered using another device: “sameness.”
“Russians chose ‘sameness’ as an instrument of domination. The message of Western colonialism was: ‘you are not able to be like us,’ while the message of Russian colonialism was ‘you are not allowed to be different from us,’” explained Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko at the recent Tbilisi Storytelling Festival (ZEG) co-hosted by Coda Story, the newsroom that I run.
The idea of “sameness as an instrument of domination” also explains why most well-meaning Russians I meet seem weirdly unaware of their country being perceived as a colonial master....
The whole essay (it's not particularly long) is worth reading.
@AlboMP this morning.
Geography is no barrier to the deep ties of friendship our countries share, as we work together to strengthen our common security, boost trade and support Ukraine.
Looking forward to meeting Anthony at the G20 next month.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1585567939842940929
So far:
Zelensky
Sturgeon
Drakeford
Biden
Martin
Von der Leyden
Albanese
Macron & Scholz were in a meeting yesterday…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-63411451
https://twitter.com/noahbarkin/status/1585574051203977219
Zelensky
Braverman (you are in)
Sturgeon
Drakeford
Braverman (whats this multiple infringement thing?)
Biden
Braverman OK i accept your word you are in
Martin
Von der Leyden
Braverman (Can you resign please this is embarassing)
Albanese
Wheres Braverman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZYCLJDWckY
Some interesting points...
https://twitter.com/bazingab00/status/1585628209294581760/photo/1
I think all you can glean from this is that it's going to be tight.
The Conservative 2019GE vote is split Tory - Labour - Don't Know / Refused / Won't Vote 42-14-31 compared to 34-14-36 in the previous poll.
Just one poll, but interesting to see that the share directly switching to Labour hasn't budged at all so far.
Edit: SNP back to a 46-25 lead in Scotland.
Blood doping involves re-injecting an athlete's own blood to boost red-blood cell concentration."
source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47415803
(As I understand it, there are ways to detect it, even when it it done by transfusing one's own red blood corpuscles.)
Mix the whole thing up a bit.
But I was born there.
He was only 1.57% short of winning outright in R1.
This is mostly now about where voters who backed the 3rd (4.2%) and 4th (3.0%) candidates go. Both have endorsed Lula.
The 4.2% one is centrist Simone Tebet. She sometimes calls herself a feminist but is fairly conservative. She is a Christian and she has talked about women a lot and may have got many of her votes from women who are not particularly leftwing. Few women will vote Bolsonaro in R2 who didn't in R1. Perhaps if they voted Tebet they will won't much enjoy voting for Lula, but they'd enjoy voting for Bolsonaro a lot less. He has on more than one occasion been fined or ordered to pay damages for sexist remarks he has made.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/27/americas/brazil-election-women-voters-asequals-intl-cmd/index.html
https://time.com/6214054/bolsonaro-women-brazil-election/
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Brazils-Bolsonaro-Fined-for-Misogynistic-Comment-to-Publicly-Retract-20190527-0013.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/29/americas/bolsonaro-court-order-compensation-sexist-remarks-intl-latam/index.html
There are several issues involved - how adult trans people can be treated with dignity and respect without infringing the rights of others. And how children have been caught up in a very poorly researched clinical pathway which some of them may come to regret.
The Trans lobby’s “no debate” hasn’t helped.
In general I'd love for an ECB bod to explain the point of raising interest rates and keeping QE going at the same time.
If they dig deep enough in their postage stamp garden they might find some fossils brought up by the mine.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gj.2602
Daily Mail version:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2756404/Doncaster-original-home-JAWS-Shark-egg-case-hoard-fossils-unearthed-inside-disused-tip.html
[Sadly, it wasn't me that found the horseshoe crab, although I was there at the time]
It does seem bizarre that voters might hand back the keys to the GOP who are intent on sabotaging the economy. They want to hold the debt ceiling increase hostage so they can force cuts to social security and Medicare .
All of a sudden they care about the debt ignoring that they added trillions to that for tax cuts for the richest under Trump .
The GOP are despicable and yet many vote for them even when it’s clear they’re voting against their own interests.
I have solved the issue of Scottish independence.
Scotland should simply self identify as independent. Everyone will use the right pronouns and all about Scotland,.
But, of course, it will effectively be pre-op (or referendum, as some people call it.) There will therefore be certain safe spaces - like the UN Chamber - that will not yet be open to Scotland.
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.
That puts the Democrats on 51 seats if they win all four, and the Republicans on 53 seats if they win all four.
Nevada is too close to call. The Republicans have clear leads in the race for governor in Arizona and Georgia, and the Democrats have a clear lead in Pennsylvania. In the end, I think the number of ticket-splitters will be very small.
So, I'd favour the Republicans to win Georgia and Arizona, the Democrats to win Pennsylvania.
So, the Senate would go 51-2 Republican, 48-9 Democratic.
A two-hour road trip is a long time in politics.
A mistake that is
https://twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1585635230622175232
That means a Walker v Warnock runoff, where Walker won't benefit from Kemp's coattails.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/pagicle/correction/#page/1
A yard short of a super over
NEW THREAD
"A woman has been found guilty of murdering and decapitating her friend in order to inherit her estate.
Jemma Mitchell, 38, killed Mee Kuen Chong at the 67-year-old's north-west London home in June 2021, before putting her body into a suitcase and driving to Devon to dump it.
Ms Chong's headless remains were found by holidaymakers in Salcombe, 200 miles from her home in Wembley.
Mitchell forged a will in an attempt to gain money for renovations to her home."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63399511
Back l8tr
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesquisas_eleitorais_para_a_eleição_presidencial_de_2022_no_Brasil#Segundo_turno
In general attempts to perpetuate division seem unhealthy, so I'm against Scottish, English, Ukrainian or Russian nationalism insofar as they attempt to create an artificial "us and them" distinction. Like anyone sane I'm also against fighting a war over it. That doesn't mean that we have to sign up to Ukrainian nationalism either, and defeating the invasion is much more important than insisting that Ukraine should rule Crimea because Krushchev redrew the boundaries. The West needs to make that distinction clear - we'll help defend Ukraine indefinitely from the current invasion, but we aren't necessarily on board with years of war to gain every inch of claimed territory.
You have to feel for Pakistan though. They've served up classics in consecutive games and lost them both. At a time when the whole country could definitely do with some good news.
The Dems need to hammer this message and stop the GOP Death Cult from sabotaging the economy .
https://twitter.com/CforWomenUK/status/1585228437199159296?s=20&t=9HoWywS-trcrqmo4QsFrag
Surely no one would be stupid or gullible enough to take at face value the Pink News statement denying it has ever been sued by an MP? Oh wait..
https://twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1585630810249433089
I've written to @KemiBadenoch
regarding her inaccurate comments in @HouseofCommons, in which she used parliamentary privilege to spread misinformation about @benjamincohen & @PinkNews
I'm calling on her to follow ministerial code and return to the chamber to correct the record👇🏾
https://twitter.com/DawnButlerBrent/status/1585605353013657600
Mr Cohen
In the interests of accuracy: do you accept that PN printed and tweeted a defamatory story about @joannaccherry, & then retracted & apologised on threat of suit? Some might think that more important than whether a writ had to be served. https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1585245802921762816…
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1585265863455809537
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1585619374450278401
"There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour."
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1585621551545782274
Not a goer, I'm afraid.