Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
How is it indecent for a lady to bare her ladycock in the ladies’ changing room?
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
How is it indecent for a lady to bare her ladycock in the ladies’ changing room?
I think "some total stranger waving their willie about" could be arrested for indecent exposure whether they were in either a male or female dressing room, or indeed anywhere else.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
There are gender neutral facilities in most places - the disabled ones, which people use for all sorts of circumstances - I see no reason why needing privacy because one is transitioning shouldn't be added. It's not fair to place the additional cost of providing yet another set of loos on businesses.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
Yes, it’s all the same underlying psychology: shadowy global elite secretly controlling everything in their quest for a one world government.
Variations around whether it’s specifically the Jews or just elites more generally, the involvement of otherwise of George Soros, whether led by politicians or big business etc.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
How is it indecent for a lady to bare her ladycock in the ladies’ changing room?
I think "some total stranger waving their willie about" could be arrested for indecent exposure whether they were in either a male or female dressing room, or indeed anywhere else.
Not in time to prevent it, or a more serious crime, from taking place. Unless you feel that police stations should have a live feed into women's changing rooms.
@rcs1000 Can we keep the troll please? We need a pet on PB.
I think one is enough - we already have our far more intellectual and lucid one who knows when to step back from the brink. The bog standard spammy ones just clog up the site.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
Yes, it’s all the same underlying psychology: shadowy global elite secretly controlling everything in their quest for a one world government.
Variations around whether it’s specifically the Jews or just elites more generally, the involvement of otherwise of George Soros, whether led by politicians or big business etc.
Good book by Jon Ronson on this - “Them”.
Lol many of the wall street elite betting against pfizer stock are themselves jews....try harder
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
What is that supposed to consist of, other than dressing as a woman* and using female public facilities?
*which in itself seems to stereotype how women should dress or style themselves.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
It's also a bit, well, late. Pretty much everyone has been dosed multiple times now. Legal restrictions have been lifted, just as was said.
What can they hope to gain by pushing an argument that they already lost heavily?
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
How is it indecent for a lady to bare her ladycock in the ladies’ changing room?
I think "some total stranger waving their willie about" could be arrested for indecent exposure whether they were in either a male or female dressing room, or indeed anywhere else.
Not in time to prevent it, or a more serious crime, from taking place. Unless you feel that police stations should have a live feed into women's changing rooms.
How should changing rooms be policed as to the gender of the people using them? Should Trans men be forced to use female facilities?
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman. Anyone with block and tackle for sure is not a woman and in reality you absolutely cannot change sex but you could say if they had had surgery etc then you could give leeway even though they are still teh ex they were born. Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise. They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
Yes, it’s all the same underlying psychology: shadowy global elite secretly controlling everything in their quest for a one world government.
Variations around whether it’s specifically the Jews or just elites more generally, the involvement of otherwise of George Soros, whether led by politicians or big business etc.
Good book by Jon Ronson on this - “Them”.
Jewish people get a very bum rap in this it seems to me. Discussions on the undesirability of anti-democratic attempts to implement world government are invariably shut down with accusations of antisemitism. That itself scapegoats Jewish people.
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
What is that supposed to consist of, other than dressing as a woman* and using female public facilities?
*which in itself seems to stereotype how women should dress or style themselves.
Well, that would be a possible reform. You could remove that requirement. Have surgery follow diagnosis, and then have legal recognition follow surgery.
(Note: I think questions regarding public facilities like toilets and changing rooms are a red herring, because they aren't affected by a legal change of gender/sex as no-one checks passports on the way into changing rooms anyway. What matters are things like police strip searches, single-sex hospital wards, safeguarding protocols for school trips, prison accommodation, etc, which are scenarios where there is a responsible authority making decisions on the basis of legal gender/sex, and it affects people with limited ability to object to that decision.)
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
What is that supposed to consist of, other than dressing as a woman* and using female public facilities?
*which in itself seems to stereotype how women should dress or style themselves.
I presume the two year deadline is because you don't want to be offering life altering surgery on a whim.
I do think it would be best to try and separate the medical approach from the legal issues over what is a woman.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
How is it indecent for a lady to bare her ladycock in the ladies’ changing room?
I think "some total stranger waving their willie about" could be arrested for indecent exposure whether they were in either a male or female dressing room, or indeed anywhere else.
Not if they are classed incorrectly as a woman by the law. Just as recently staff in a hospital claimed a female patient could not have been raped as their were no MEN in the ward. Gives them carte blanche and to do so without any need for medical reports etc and just someone walking in and saying they have been a woman for 3 months is mental.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
Yes, it’s all the same underlying psychology: shadowy global elite secretly controlling everything in their quest for a one world government.
Variations around whether it’s specifically the Jews or just elites more generally, the involvement of otherwise of George Soros, whether led by politicians or big business etc.
Good book by Jon Ronson on this - “Them”.
Jewish people get a very bum rap in this it seems to me. Discussions on the undesirability of anti-democratic attempts to implement world government are invariably shut down with accusations of antisemitism. That itself scapegoats Jewish people.
But we aren't talking about criticisms of anti democratic governance here. We are talking about anti vaxxerism.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman. Anyone with block and tackle for sure is not a woman and in reality you absolutely cannot change sex but you could say if they had had surgery etc then you could give leeway even though they are still teh ex they were born. Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise. They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
So if a person is required to "live as a woman" for two years prior to gender surgery, yet are prevented from "living as a woman" because they are pre-surgery, how are they supposed to meet the qualification? It is rather Catch-22.
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
What is that supposed to consist of, other than dressing as a woman* and using female public facilities?
*which in itself seems to stereotype how women should dress or style themselves.
It is 2 years to get a GRC , they are not counted under law as a "Lady" in those 2 years. No surgery should mean no access to women's safe areas.
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
What is that supposed to consist of, other than dressing as a woman* and using female public facilities?
*which in itself seems to stereotype how women should dress or style themselves.
I presume the two year deadline is because you don't want to be offering life altering surgery on a whim.
I do think it would be best to try and separate the medical approach from the legal issues over what is a woman.
Fair enough, but how is a pre-op Trans person supposed to qualify for surgery, if they are prevented from living as the opposite gender?
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman. Anyone with block and tackle for sure is not a woman and in reality you absolutely cannot change sex but you could say if they had had surgery etc then you could give leeway even though they are still teh ex they were born. Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise. They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
So if a person is required to "live as a woman" for two years prior to gender surgery, yet are prevented from "living as a woman" because they are pre-surgery, how are they supposed to meet the qualification? It is rather Catch-22.
I'm not quite sure what living as a woman is supposed to mean - but I would presume it is someone who is convinced in their own mind that they are a woman. Now maybe there is an overlap with the gender dysphoria diagnosis. However if you were to recommend to someone that they have life altering surgery after deciding yesterday that they were a woman, I think you'd be abandoning your hippocratic oath.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman. Anyone with block and tackle for sure is not a woman and in reality you absolutely cannot change sex but you could say if they had had surgery etc then you could give leeway even though they are still teh ex they were born. Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise. They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
So if a person is required to "live as a woman" for two years prior to gender surgery, yet are prevented from "living as a woman" because they are pre-surgery, how are they supposed to meet the qualification? It is rather Catch-22.
If there is no difference between being a man and being a woman than whether you use the male or female toilets/changing rooms, then in what sense does a person believe themselves to be a woman instead of a man, or vice versa, anyway?
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Is the correct German pronunciation of Leopard actually Le-oh-pard? I heard Petraeus pronounce it this way and thought it was just the weird standard US approach (see Eye-rak) but have since heard a couple of commentators use this form.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
Yes, it’s all the same underlying psychology: shadowy global elite secretly controlling everything in their quest for a one world government.
Variations around whether it’s specifically the Jews or just elites more generally, the involvement of otherwise of George Soros, whether led by politicians or big business etc.
Good book by Jon Ronson on this - “Them”.
Which was, of course, where the fascist thing started. Hatred of the shadowy world of “high finance”.
The Nazis then added the “Jews control finance” as another layer.
I have tiny bets on Steve Baker, Geoffrey Cox, and Graham Brady (that's a pound I'll never see again) for next PM. Anyone else on anyone interesting?
Next PM if not Starmer won't be anyone but Boris.
Brady and Baker likely lose their seats at the next election, Cox an outside bet for Conservative Leader of the Opposition but Steve Barclay is more likely in my view
That’s not right
Assume (and I don’t think he will) Rishi wins the next election. I don’t see how Starmer could survive as LotO, and Boris will continue to be passé
Hence the next PM will be someone like Michelle Donelan 😳
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
The issue is irrelevant, so long as it’s seen as devisive. It’s the division and polarisation that’s important to them.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
The issue is irrelevant, so long as it’s seen as devisive. It’s the division and polarisation that’s important to them.
The problem for these Muscovite donkeys is that British people are more discerning than our American cousins and don't fall for this nonsense.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
Surgery is not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate - if it was very few would be issued as very few trans-women with GRCs have undergone surgery. That is another misconception among the public.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
It's pretty much agreed that what Ukraine really needs are the Leopards. Only Germany is preventing that.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
The issue is irrelevant, so long as it’s seen as devisive. It’s the division and polarisation that’s important to them.
But then we get into basic competence.
Stirring the pot to create division is a skill like any other. A good talk radio host/producer knows how to do it. And the Vax thing doesn't really do it in the UK, which shows how absurd Andrew Bridgen is.
But every week, we get an antivax troll here. It's like a pigeon pecking at a plate glass window, and about as effective.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
Surely Biden just needs to announce a company of Abrams for Ukraine (delivery date tbc) and that would be Germany forced to set the Leopards free. Difficult to think there isn’t some coordination going on.
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
What is that supposed to consist of, other than dressing as a woman* and using female public facilities?
*which in itself seems to stereotype how women should dress or style themselves.
I presume the two year deadline is because you don't want to be offering life altering surgery on a whim.
I do think it would be best to try and separate the medical approach from the legal issues over what is a woman.
Fair enough, but how is a pre-op Trans person supposed to qualify for surgery, if they are prevented from living as the opposite gender?
Who is preventing them from living as the opposite gender?
They don't need a GRC to do that.
And most trans people are not "pre-op" as most don't op.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
If they are legally a woman how can them being naked in a room full of women be indecent exposure.
The Scottish government in court but notin Holyrood argued that a GRC changes sex for all purposes - Lady Haldane agreed, and that's the law as it currently stands.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
If they are legally a woman how can them being naked in a room full of women be indecent exposure.
Given Lady Haldane’s ruling, it’s impossible to claim that the Scottish bill has no bearing on equality laws.
The Scottish government in court but notin Holyrood argued that a GRC changes sex for all purposes - Lady Haldane agreed, and that's the law as it currently stands.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
I don’t see how prolonging this conflict benefits the US more than a quick Russian defeat.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
Most common law charges are now abolished by the Sexual Offences (S) Act 2009 and are only used when the offending behaviour was before that Act came into force. Shameless indecency was held not to be a crime in Scots law in 2003. The focus now is on the person to whom the indecent behaviour is addressed or to whom it is exposed.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
Like most of us I'm an armchair general, but I don't find the "send 100 tanks and it will shorten the war" argument persuasive - I think it's designed to persuade the "let's end this war" segment of the public (who probably outnumber the "let's help Ukraine achieve total victory, even if it takes years" segment).
Germany's difficulty is that they believe that sending German-made tanks would reinforce Russian popular support for the war, because of the echoes of WW2. How important popular support is to Putin isn't clear, but if anything it'd be likely to extend the war - it'd certainly make a new round of Russian conscription more palatable.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The countries who want to supply Leopards, including Poland, have confirmed that they are commencing training of Ukrainian personnel immediately so the effect of the non decision may prove to be somewhat limited in practice.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman. Anyone with block and tackle for sure is not a woman and in reality you absolutely cannot change sex but you could say if they had had surgery etc then you could give leeway even though they are still teh ex they were born. Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise. They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
"Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman."
This is exactly the point: 99% of the time you can. But are you saying you've never been in the street, and wondered if that person over there is male or female? You've always been 100% certain about it, from a glance or two, and without them speaking?
Because that's the sort of thing we're talking about here, of what will need to be policed if trans people are banned (and remember, trans people have been using womens toilets for as long as there have been trans people and womens toilets).
And there's another issue here: as with the article I linked to below, we all have stereotypes of what a 'man' and a 'woman' looks like. But there are people, who through intent or just plain biology, don't match those stereotypes. A weedy man who looked effete. The 'butch' lady with short hair. This is much more of a factor when we go to other races and societies, and with age.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
If they are legally a woman how can them being naked in a room full of women be indecent exposure.
Given Lady Haldane’s ruling, it’s impossible to claim that the Scottish bill has no bearing on equality laws.
The Scottish government in court but notin Holyrood argued that a GRC changes sex for all purposes - Lady Haldane agreed, and that's the law as it currently stands.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
You collecting posts and issuing editions or do you indeed have anything to add to the debate but pressed GO too quickly
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
The current law (in England) requires 2 years of living as a woman to qualify for gender surgery.
Surgery is not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate - if it was very few would be issued as very few trans-women with GRCs have undergone surgery. That is another misconception among the public.
And that is at the heart of the issue. A cock in a frock is a bloke, not a woman.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
And how do you police this? If you believed someone who just went into a cubicle was a man, what would you do? And what if you were wrong?
That's the insanity of all of this - it is utterly unenforceable, and trying to enforce it will lead to harm.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
If they are legally a woman how can them being naked in a room full of women be indecent exposure.
Given Lady Haldane’s ruling, it’s impossible to claim that the Scottish bill has no bearing on equality laws.
The Scottish government in court but notin Holyrood argued that a GRC changes sex for all purposes - Lady Haldane agreed, and that's the law as it currently stands.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
You collecting posts and issuing editions or do you indeed have anything to add to the debate but pressed GO too quickly
Damn, messed up the editing there. I said: The relevant charge would now be s8 of the 2009 Act which provides: 8Sexual exposure (1)If a person (“A”)— (a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and (b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,intentionally and for a purpose mentioned in subsection (2), exposes A's genitals in a sexual manner to B with the intention that B will see them, then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of sexual exposure. (2)The purposes are— (a)obtaining sexual gratification, (b)humiliating, distressing or alarming B."
A trans person, pre-op, who saw fit to get naked in a woman's changing room would be a very straightforward illustration of this. The question of whether they are a man or a woman is simply irrelevant to the charge and the current bill would not change this.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman. Anyone with block and tackle for sure is not a woman and in reality you absolutely cannot change sex but you could say if they had had surgery etc then you could give leeway even though they are still teh ex they were born. Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise. They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
"Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman."
This is exactly the point: 99% of the time you can. But are you saying you've never been in the street, and wondered if that person over there is male or female? You've always been 100% certain about it, from a glance or two, and without them speaking?
Because that's the sort of thing we're talking about here, of what will need to be policed if trans people are banned (and remember, trans people have been using womens toilets for as long as there have been trans people and womens toilets).
And there's another issue here: as with the article I linked to below, we all have stereotypes of what a 'man' and a 'woman' looks like. But there are people, who through intent or just plain biology, don't match those stereotypes. A weedy man who looked effete. The 'butch' lady with short hair. This is much more of a factor when we go to other races and societies, and with age.
It does not hide the fact that anyone caught in women only areas with intact block and tackle should be huckled.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
Like most of us I'm an armchair general, but I don't find the "send 100 tanks and it will shorten the war" argument persuasive - I think it's designed to persuade the "let's end this war" segment of the public (who probably outnumber the "let's help Ukraine achieve total victory, even if it takes years" segment).
Germany's difficulty is that they believe that sending German-made tanks would reinforce Russian popular support for the war, because of the echoes of WW2. How important popular support is to Putin isn't clear, but if anything it'd be likely to extend the war - it'd certainly make a new round of Russian conscription more palatable.
You have to question yourself when you appear to be the only soldier marching out of step.
Does Germany, uniquely, not understand the military advantage Nato enjoys over Russia?
A trans person, pre-op, who saw fit to get naked in a woman's changing room would be a very straightforward illustration of this. The question of whether they are a man or a woman is simply irrelevant to the charge and the current bill would not change this.
Interesting - I wonder whether Police Scotland would pursue such a case.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman. Anyone with block and tackle for sure is not a woman and in reality you absolutely cannot change sex but you could say if they had had surgery etc then you could give leeway even though they are still teh ex they were born. Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise. They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
"Everyone knows the differences between a man and a woman."
This is exactly the point: 99% of the time you can. But are you saying you've never been in the street, and wondered if that person over there is male or female? You've always been 100% certain about it, from a glance or two, and without them speaking?
Because that's the sort of thing we're talking about here, of what will need to be policed if trans people are banned (and remember, trans people have been using womens toilets for as long as there have been trans people and womens toilets).
And there's another issue here: as with the article I linked to below, we all have stereotypes of what a 'man' and a 'woman' looks like. But there are people, who through intent or just plain biology, don't match those stereotypes. A weedy man who looked effete. The 'butch' lady with short hair. This is much more of a factor when we go to other races and societies, and with age.
It does not hide the fact that anyone caught in women only areas with intact block and tackle should be huckled.
Including someone who is in the two year (I think one year) process of transitioning, which they need to do by law pre-op?
A trans person, pre-op, who saw fit to get naked in a woman's changing room would be a very straightforward illustration of this. The question of whether they are a man or a woman is simply irrelevant to the charge and the current bill would not change this.
Interesting - I wonder whether Police Scotland would pursue such a case.
Unquestionably. The 2009 Act was a forward thinking piece of legislation. The definition of rape is the insertion of a penis in the vagina, anus or mouth of the victim without consent or reasonable belief of consent. Once again, the question of the gender of the person with the penis is completely irrelevant as indeed is the gender or sex of the victim.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
(There's a discussion to be had on the generally poor and declining provision of public toilets, but that's another matter that affects everyone.)
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
How is it indecent for a lady to bare her ladycock in the ladies’ changing room?
I think "some total stranger waving their willie about" could be arrested for indecent exposure whether they were in either a male or female dressing room, or indeed anywhere else.
Not in time to prevent it, or a more serious crime, from taking place. Unless you feel that police stations should have a live feed into women's changing rooms.
How should changing rooms be policed as to the gender of the people using them? Should Trans men be forced to use female facilities?
I can't see any potential harm from ftm pre-op transsexuals using men's facilities, but for for the sake of fairness, they should probably be treated the same.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
Like most of us I'm an armchair general, but I don't find the "send 100 tanks and it will shorten the war" argument persuasive - I think it's designed to persuade the "let's end this war" segment of the public (who probably outnumber the "let's help Ukraine achieve total victory, even if it takes years" segment).
Germany's difficulty is that they believe that sending German-made tanks would reinforce Russian popular support for the war, because of the echoes of WW2. How important popular support is to Putin isn't clear, but if anything it'd be likely to extend the war - it'd certainly make a new round of Russian conscription more palatable.
You have to question yourself when you appear to be the only soldier marching out of step.
A trans person, pre-op, who saw fit to get naked in a woman's changing room would be a very straightforward illustration of this. The question of whether they are a man or a woman is simply irrelevant to the charge and the current bill would not change this.
Interesting - I wonder whether Police Scotland would pursue such a case.
Unquestionably.
Optimist! Perhaps it’s a coincidence but the enthusiasm for prosecuting does appear a bit variable….
Frustratingly, a lot of the historical data tables for old YouGov polls seem to have disappeared from their website, so I haven't been able to look at YouGov polls from, say, 2013 to compare.
If anyone knows where they can be found, then that could be really helpful.
"They will be using Airbnbs, with key search words – 'entire place' and 'lockbox' – so as to keep contact with people to an absolute minimum."
"Hats can hide full facial features, too."
F*** me. Can they really?
"The simple key to staying hiding is isolation."
Funny, because I thought the key was busking inside large London railway terminals.
The purpose of this entire story with its below-the-line push for an honour killing and lynching is to promote maximal surveillance by means of the enemies of the people idea.
There will be more. We are still in the beginning.
Hundreds of cops are on this. You'd think the foxes had stolen some plutonium.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
I don’t see how prolonging this conflict benefits the US more than a quick Russian defeat.
I've never been clear on that myself. The most I've seen attempted is that the US would like chaos in general to continue as they find that useful.
It's surely true that the US (and others, but particularly them), could do a lot more if they really wanted, boots on the ground and all that, and they have chosen not to do those various things for all sorts of reasons, but 'not doing as much as they possibly could' does not equal 'wants to prolong for as long as possible' in my head, it seems more of a range than those binary options. Yet I'm to believe that unless they send 500 Abrams, which I imagine would be criticised, that means they basically are responsible for it carrying on as long as possible? It seems a step too far.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
The issue is irrelevant, so long as it’s seen as devisive. It’s the division and polarisation that’s important to them.
Despite the Bridgen types it really doesn't feel like there is a substantial mainstream or even alternative grouping in the UK that is full on anti vax conspiracist. Maybe it strikes a chord better with freedom loving Americans over deferential Brits willing to accept what they're told?
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
Not entirely fair. SFAICS this wasn't a story, despite its populist potential, until there was a baby. So posh girl forms long term relationship with bloke who isn't even distantly related to the queen and falls out with various people who are didn't have sufficient legs.
All babies residing in the UK have, unknown to them, rights. A number of authorities have statutory duties and powers to ensure their welfare. Most of us think this is right. Certainly I do.
New born babies on the run are a story for the media. Add the populist elements, and pics of posh houses are there you are.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
The issue is irrelevant, so long as it’s seen as devisive. It’s the division and polarisation that’s important to them.
Despite the Bridgen types it really doesn't feel like there is a substantial mainstream or even alternative grouping in the UK that is full on anti vax conspiracist. Maybe it strikes a chord better with freedom loving Americans over deferential Brits willing to accept what they're told?
There was a bunch of what appeared to be anti vaxxer types in the middle of Manchester on Thursday. I gave them a wide berth.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
Like most of us I'm an armchair general, but I don't find the "send 100 tanks and it will shorten the war" argument persuasive - I think it's designed to persuade the "let's end this war" segment of the public (who probably outnumber the "let's help Ukraine achieve total victory, even if it takes years" segment).
Germany's difficulty is that they believe that sending German-made tanks would reinforce Russian popular support for the war, because of the echoes of WW2. How important popular support is to Putin isn't clear, but if anything it'd be likely to extend the war - it'd certainly make a new round of Russian conscription more palatable.
If that is their belief it seems a little misplaced to this armchair general. Russia is already thumping hard on the idea they are at full on war with NATO, with allegations of direct involvement on the ground in some cases, and those who are persuaded by such things in the West like Corbyn are already on board with the idea. It's hard to believe there'd be an appreciable difference with those within Russia who are not already on board when from the messaging a lot of Russians may already think Germany and others have sent such things, even if they can ladle in more direct references to the Great Patriotic War.
It just seems another of those 'Mustn't provoke' arguments.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
The issue is irrelevant, so long as it’s seen as devisive. It’s the division and polarisation that’s important to them.
Despite the Bridgen types it really doesn't feel like there is a substantial mainstream or even alternative grouping in the UK that is full on anti vax conspiracist. Maybe it strikes a chord better with freedom loving Americans over deferential Brits willing to accept what they're told?
There was a bunch of what appeared to be anti vaxxer types in the middle of Manchester on Thursday. I gave them a wide berth.
I didn't see them in person, but I did come across multiple 5G conspiracy leaflets in several locations when visiting a nearby town recently. I kept a close eye out for anyone who looked likely to be spreading them.
Not an expert but looks like it's about the precise mechanisms he was using to divert gains from his business to his father.
It's almost as though these sorts of financial mechanisms are't really necessary and are just a method of making things complicated so that some people can choose to make 'errors' and roll the dice on getting caught out. But I'm sure that's just cynical old me.
Zahawi must be desperate though, to fall back on a classic politician's 'I was an idiot' defence, always the last resort.
Frustratingly, a lot of the historical data tables for old YouGov polls seem to have disappeared from their website, so I haven't been able to look at YouGov polls from, say, 2013 to compare.
If anyone knows where they can be found, then that could be really helpful.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
I don’t see how prolonging this conflict benefits the US more than a quick Russian defeat.
I've never been clear on that myself. The most I've seen attempted is that the US would like chaos in general to continue as they find that useful.
It's surely true that the US (and others, but particularly them), could do a lot more if they really wanted, boots on the ground and all that, and they have chosen not to do those various things for all sorts of reasons, but 'not doing as much as they possibly could' does not equal 'wants to prolong for as long as possible' in my head, it seems more of a range than those binary options. Yet I'm to believe that unless they send 500 Abrams, which I imagine would be criticised, that means they basically are responsible for it carrying on as long as possible? It seems a step too far.
The Americans are just salami slicing their support. They can't do too much all at once because it causes the Russian establishment to panic and do something rash. If it's just a slow tightening of the noose there isn't a moment that induces a dirty bomb or something like that.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
You ignore the issue at hand - the ScotGov proposal to significantly widen the definition of “men who are transitioning”. If someone has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as a woman for two years we can be reasonably confident that that is their settled will. Someone without a diagnosis and has lived as a woman for 3 months may be another matter entirely - and that is what the concern is about.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
He can say what he likes, whether it is true or not, and HMRC probably can't correct him in public, for the usual "cannot comment on individual cases" reasons.
On the pointlessness of trying to make coronation and other ceremonial events less silly
I was really against this monarchy thing, but then I learned the King is going to wear the gilded uniform of an admiral of the fleet instead of knee breeches and that act of modernization really has won me over.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
You ignore the issue at hand - the ScotGov proposal to significantly widen the definition of “men who are transitioning”. If someone has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as a woman for two years we can be reasonably confident that that is their settled will. Someone without a diagnosis and has lived as a woman for 3 months may be another matter entirely - and that is what the concern is about.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
I'm not ignoring the issue at hand: I'm looking at the much more fundamental issue at the heart of this - and the one this always gets dragged into.
As for your last paragraph, there are plenty of women who disagree with those groups. They are as much 'women' as the 'women' who oppose these changes.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
You ignore the issue at hand - the ScotGov proposal to significantly widen the definition of “men who are transitioning”. If someone has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as a woman for two years we can be reasonably confident that that is their settled will. Someone without a diagnosis and has lived as a woman for 3 months may be another matter entirely - and that is what the concern is about.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
I'm not ignoring the issue at hand:
What is your view of the Scottish Government’s proposals? You seem reluctant to address that.
Why do you think the Scottish government has “suddenly” run into problems when they ignored advice they didn’t like?
Which women’s groups are supportive of the Scottish governments proposals (ideally ones not funded by the Scottish government)?
Unlike @MoonRabbit, I don't get too hostile to synthetic surface racing (or winter flat racing, just don't use the a and the w word together). Back in the day, the Equitrack at Lingfield was a licence for regular punters to top up their funds - always back course form over form at the Fibresand tracks and always back the horse drawn one over five furlongs -along with breakfast at 9am for a ten race card starting at 10.30.
You tell punters that now - they don't believe a word of it.
Chris Hipkins will succeed Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand's Prime Minister and it will be interesting to see if Ardern's departure has lanced the unpopularity boil. I cannot believe some of the hatred (there's no other word) expressed toward her on some NZ forums.
There's this huge anger out there in the Anglosphere - it seems strongest among men but I've seen it from women as well. I don't get it so I don't understand it. It's more than social or economic or even cultural - it seems an almost visceral rage against all aspects of modern life and politics. It's clear where this anger is directed but I don't get any sense of the kind of society or identity to which this anger espouses.
It's almost as though the anger is all they have - there certainly aren't any viable solutions or constructive alternatives just an endless rage. Perhaps it's all they ever had.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
Wifey is going a bit above and beyond for upcoming Holocaust Memorial Day, speaking to one of the surviving "Mengele twins". Now in her 90's, she was rescued by Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, who personally saved thousands of Jews both before and after the war (after being even more dangerous).
She is finishing a TV dramatisation of his life. It won't be easy watching in places. Some of the scrapes he got into are remarkable. As are the stories of some of the children he was able to save.
Comments
Variations around whether it’s specifically the Jews or just elites more generally, the involvement of otherwise of George Soros, whether led by politicians or big business etc.
Good book by Jon Ronson on this - “Them”.
What is that supposed to consist of, other than dressing as a woman* and using female public facilities?
*which in itself seems to stereotype how women should dress or style themselves.
What can they hope to gain by pushing an argument that they already lost heavily?
Men with block and tackle have not any hope of being a woman for sure only nutjobs , cranks and idiots could believe otherwise.
They can feel what they want and get on with their lives but it does not make it reality. As Rabbie said A man's a man for a that
(Note: I think questions regarding public facilities like toilets and changing rooms are a red herring, because they aren't affected by a legal change of gender/sex as no-one checks passports on the way into changing rooms anyway. What matters are things like police strip searches, single-sex hospital wards, safeguarding protocols for school trips, prison accommodation, etc, which are scenarios where there is a responsible authority making decisions on the basis of legal gender/sex, and it affects people with limited ability to object to that decision.)
I do think it would be best to try and separate the medical approach from the legal issues over what is a woman.
Gives them carte blanche and to do so without any need for medical reports etc and just someone walking in and saying they have been a woman for 3 months is mental.
Is the correct German pronunciation of Leopard actually Le-oh-pard? I heard Petraeus pronounce it this way and thought it was just the weird standard US approach (see Eye-rak) but have since heard a couple of commentators use this form.
The Nazis then added the “Jews control finance” as another layer.
Assume (and I don’t think he will) Rishi wins the next election. I don’t see how Starmer could survive as LotO, and Boris will continue to be passé
Hence the next PM will be someone like Michelle Donelan 😳
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_of_indecency_in_Scots_law
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
Stirring the pot to create division is a skill like any other. A good talk radio host/producer knows how to do it. And the Vax thing doesn't really do it in the UK, which shows how absurd Andrew Bridgen is.
But every week, we get an antivax troll here. It's like a pigeon pecking at a plate glass window, and about as effective.
They don't need a GRC to do that.
And most trans people are not "pre-op" as most don't op.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
https://archive.is/oGaiO
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_of_indecency_in_Scots_law
If they are legally a woman how can them being
naked in a room full of women be indecent exposure.
Given Lady Haldane’s ruling, it’s impossible to claim that the Scottish bill has no bearing on equality laws.
The Scottish government in court but not in Holyrood argued that a GRC changes sex for all purposes - Lady Haldane agreed, and that's the law as it currently stands.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
https://samf.substack.com/p/proxies-and-puppets
Germany's difficulty is that they believe that sending German-made tanks would reinforce Russian popular support for the war, because of the echoes of WW2. How important popular support is to Putin isn't clear, but if anything it'd be likely to extend the war - it'd certainly make a new round of Russian conscription more palatable.
This is exactly the point: 99% of the time you can. But are you saying you've never been in the street, and wondered if that person over there is male or female? You've always been 100% certain about it, from a glance or two, and without them speaking?
Because that's the sort of thing we're talking about here, of what will need to be policed if trans people are banned (and remember, trans people have been using womens toilets for as long as there have been trans people and womens toilets).
And there's another issue here: as with the article I linked to below, we all have stereotypes of what a 'man' and a 'woman' looks like. But there are people, who through intent or just plain biology, don't match those stereotypes. A weedy man who looked effete. The 'butch' lady with short hair. This is much more of a factor when we go to other races and societies, and with age.
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_of_indecency_in_Scots_law
If they are legally a woman how can them being
naked in a room full of women be indecent exposure.
Given Lady Haldane’s ruling, it’s impossible to claim that the Scottish bill has no bearing on equality laws.
The Scottish government in court but not in Holyrood argued that a GRC changes sex for all purposes - Lady Haldane agreed, and that's the law as it currently stands.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
You collecting posts and issuing editions or do you indeed have anything to add to the debate but pressed GO too quickly
And how do you police this? If you believed someone who just went into a cubicle was a man, what would you do? And what if you were wrong?
That's the insanity of all of this - it is utterly unenforceable, and trying to enforce it will lead to harm.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
In Scotland it would be a crime to say that the lady had a cock and the victim would be charged more like.
Why would it be a crime to say "that a lady has a cock"?. The issue is of indecent exposure not the nature of genitalia being exposed.
If they are counted as legally a woman then it would not be indecent exposure in a women's changing room that supposedly was full of only women.
Why not?
It would seem to constitute indecent exposure in Scottish law, whatever type of genitalia, if it were done in a way that offends public morals, such as "waving their willie about".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_of_indecency_in_Scots_law
If they are legally a woman how can them being
naked in a room full of women be indecent exposure.
Given Lady Haldane’s ruling, it’s impossible to claim that the Scottish bill has no bearing on equality laws.
The Scottish government in court but not in Holyrood argued that a GRC changes sex for all purposes - Lady Haldane agreed, and that's the law as it currently stands.
Getting naked in a changing room hardly counts as "indecent exposure'!
You collecting posts and issuing editions or do you indeed have anything to add to the debate but pressed GO too quickly
Damn, messed up the editing there. I said:
The relevant charge would now be s8 of the 2009 Act which provides:
8Sexual exposure
(1)If a person (“A”)—
(a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and
(b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,intentionally and for a purpose mentioned in subsection (2), exposes A's genitals in a sexual manner to B with the intention that B will see them, then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of sexual exposure.
(2)The purposes are—
(a)obtaining sexual gratification,
(b)humiliating, distressing or alarming B."
A trans person, pre-op, who saw fit to get naked in a woman's changing room would be a very straightforward illustration of this. The question of whether they are a man or a woman is simply irrelevant to the charge and the current bill would not change this.
Does Germany, uniquely, not understand the military advantage Nato enjoys over Russia?
(There's a discussion to be had on the generally poor and declining provision of public toilets, but that's another matter that affects everyone.)
The share of cases has increased more slowly in the US and UK, recently.
A speculative thread why this might be.
https://twitter.com/MoritzGerstung/status/1616747437057531906
"They will be using Airbnbs, with key search words – 'entire place' and 'lockbox' – so as to keep contact with people to an absolute minimum."
"Hats can hide full facial features, too."
F*** me. Can they really?
"The simple key to staying hiding is isolation."
Funny, because I thought the key was busking inside large London railway terminals.
The purpose of this entire story with its below-the-line push for an honour killing and lynching is to promote maximal surveillance by means of the enemies of the people idea.
There will be more. We are still in the beginning.
Hundreds of cops are on this. You'd think the foxes had stolen some plutonium.
It's surely true that the US (and others, but particularly them), could do a lot more if they really wanted, boots on the ground and all that, and they have chosen not to do those various things for all sorts of reasons, but 'not doing as much as they possibly could' does not equal 'wants to prolong for as long as possible' in my head, it seems more of a range than those binary options. Yet I'm to believe that unless they send 500 Abrams, which I imagine would be criticised, that means they basically are responsible for it carrying on as long as possible? It seems a step too far.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
All babies residing in the UK have, unknown to them, rights. A number of authorities have statutory duties and powers to ensure their welfare. Most of us think this is right. Certainly I do.
New born babies on the run are a story for the media. Add the populist elements, and pics of posh houses are there you are.
It just seems another of those 'Mustn't provoke' arguments.
Rhett Wilson met the domestic violence victims through his work as a West Mercia Police officer in Shropshire.
He had admitted three corruption offences relating to the relationships and was sentenced to two years and eight months at Worcester Crown Court.
He was convicted of perverting the course of justice for deleting evidence in December at the same court.
Wilson, 27, joined the force in 2019 and began pursuing sexual relationships and stalking in December that year.
He was arrested on 10 March 2020, days after a referral was made to the force's Professional Standards Department.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-64358800
Zahawi speaks.
Not an expert but looks like it's about the precise mechanisms he was using to divert gains from his business to his father.
Zahawi must be desperate though, to fall back on a classic politician's 'I was an idiot' defence, always the last resort.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
In my random sample of 8 family members he keeps 0%!!!
I was really against this monarchy thing, but then I learned the King is going to wear the gilded uniform of an admiral of the fleet instead of knee breeches and that act of modernization really has won me over.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1616601449122910211?cxt=HHwWhsDS5f2cqe8sAAAA
As for your last paragraph, there are plenty of women who disagree with those groups. They are as much 'women' as the 'women' who oppose these changes.
Why do you think the Scottish government has “suddenly” run into problems when they ignored advice they didn’t like?
Which women’s groups are supportive of the Scottish governments proposals (ideally ones not funded by the Scottish government)?
Unlike @MoonRabbit, I don't get too hostile to synthetic surface racing (or winter flat racing, just don't use the a and the w word together). Back in the day, the Equitrack at Lingfield was a licence for regular punters to top up their funds - always back course form over form at the Fibresand tracks and always back the horse drawn one over five furlongs -along with breakfast at 9am for a ten race card starting at 10.30.
You tell punters that now - they don't believe a word of it.
Chris Hipkins will succeed Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand's Prime Minister and it will be interesting to see if Ardern's departure has lanced the unpopularity boil. I cannot believe some of the hatred (there's no other word) expressed toward her on some NZ forums.
There's this huge anger out there in the Anglosphere - it seems strongest among men but I've seen it from women as well. I don't get it so I don't understand it. It's more than social or economic or even cultural - it seems an almost visceral rage against all aspects of modern life and politics. It's clear where this anger is directed but I don't get any sense of the kind of society or identity to which this anger espouses.
It's almost as though the anger is all they have - there certainly aren't any viable solutions or constructive alternatives just an endless rage. Perhaps it's all they ever had.
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
She is finishing a TV dramatisation of his life. It won't be easy watching in places. Some of the scrapes he got into are remarkable. As are the stories of some of the children he was able to save.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Schonfeld