I bet Stupidly feels like a fucking mug. He went on Sophy Ridge last week and got his ringpiece gaped trying to defend Zahawi. All for nothing.
How do they not see it coming every time? Unless Zahawi lied to them about what his situation was they should have known the revelations had to end with him leaving.
Politicians use an 'I'm an idiot not a crook' defence all the time when they run out of options. Sometimes it's even true.
But the public was never going to buy that a guy who was Chancellor and ran to be PM was claiming to be so bad with finances he had to pay millions in penalties. Especially when he dissembled for months about it and clearly thinks he did nothing wrong.
I mean does anyone here believe he made an honest mistake?
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
One inevitability of the way this issue is discussed is that these self same talking points that you choose to campaign on are exactly the same as the ones that the right (especially in the US, but here too) are using as wedge issues in an explicitly anti-trans campaign.
It’s therefore almost inevitable that when someone like you comes along bringing up the same talking points, the default assumption is that you’re are taking sides with bigots and fascists. Unless you put the work in to make it clear that it’s not the case, that’s the impression people are going to walk away with.
Is this fair? No, obviously not. But that’s politics for you.
There seems to be zero effort made in distancing going on, eg up here GC feminists appear comfortable counting as allies the Scottish Family Party who certainly qualify as bigots if not the ‘F’ word. Plus ça change but there’s also a remarkable reluctance to assume any good faith on the part of one’s opponents.
In general I find the extremists on either side (eg punch a TERF v. Sturgeon deserves be raped by a trans person) unattractive not say on occasion deranged; I have to say on PB the deranged extremists tend to come from one side of the argument.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
I know everyone thinks that Sunak is weak for waiting to sack Zahawi but maybe he’s actually been clever for internal party political reasons. He can’t be accused by his Tory enemies of ditching a big party beast to save his own skin as he can point to the fact that he let a process happen and unfortunately that process found that Zahawi had to go.
Zahawi is an absolute knob for not stepping down earlier but the public damage was already done to the tories so Sunak waiting for his ethics chap to ok the axe means that internal damage is reduced.
Isn't the weakness not being able to get Zahawi to fall on his sword?
It would indeed have been far preferable for him to go a week ago, but Sunak either failed to recognise it or failed to get what he wanted.
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
The labour halfwits are all for it and voted with Sturgeon and her weirdo Greens and despicable Lib Dums. Scotland is run by some bunch nowadays when only the halfwitted Tories voted the right way.
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
One inevitability of the way this issue is discussed is that these self same talking points that you choose to campaign on are exactly the same as the ones that the right (especially in the US, but here too) are using as wedge issues in an explicitly anti-trans campaign.
It’s therefore almost inevitable that when someone like you comes along bringing up the same talking points, the default assumption is that you’re are taking sides with bigots and fascists. Unless you put the work in to make it clear that it’s not the case, that’s the impression people are going to walk away with.
Is this fair? No, obviously not. But that’s politics for you.
Eh, where do you get cyclefree is taking sides with bigots and fascists, only a fantasist could come to that conclusion.
Do you need a lesson in reading comprehension malc?
I am perfectly able to comprehend bollox when I read it thank you. Your pretence that it was others who would think Cyclefree a bigot and fascist rather than your own opinion is very clear to see.
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
This was a left-wing feminist issue before the religious right got involved.
I bet Stupidly feels like a fucking mug. He went on Sophy Ridge last week and got his ringpiece gaped trying to defend Zahawi. All for nothing.
Being commanded to defend the indefensible shortly before the inevitable was said to be an important factor in the Cabinet's defenestration of Boris.
Yes, although it was made a good deal worse with Johnson because he gave fictional accounts. So they were forced to go out and lie about Partygate and Pincher. They ultimately recognised that was never going to change as Johnson is a pathological liar.
With Sunak, the dither and delay all looks deeply botched. But it's not fundamentally dishonest (so colleagues look foolish but aren't wheeled out to lie) and they may well judge that a better political operation would improve the situation.
We may be at cross-purposes about what we define as "non-issues".
If Labour were running on a policy platform of "let rapists identify as women and then hunt down your daughters" then perhaps the Tories would have something to go after.
As it is, we have a very vague "fear the lady cock" message with no specific policy or societal change or even agreement about who the fear is supposed to be about.
Your average voter may hold a niggling doubt on the issue. But they have very specific grievances on the cost of living, that public services are broken, that the government is openly stealing their money etc etc.
Its a "non-issue politically" because the number of votes it will sway is close to zero.
People seem to be posting a Labour policy which doesn't exist, so I question whether they are really here to argue about progressing this issue or just to try and score points.
Labour's policy has literally been the same for over a year. Men have penises, women have vaginas. That is sex. But gender is not the same as sex - and we should treat people in that position with kindness and respect and help them where we can. Just as we help disabled people, or people in poverty (well, we used to).
I've just had it with people that don't actually care pretending they do. These same people would have been arguing against gay marriage if it was worth a few points in the polls.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
You think the women on here are doing it out of self interest Incase they happen to find themselves locked up?
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I will be voting for neither the Tories nor Labour. So don't wrongly identify me in the red camp. You however are very firmly in the blue camp trying to make a moral argument why a vote for Labour is Wrong.
Zahawi is just the latest example of Tories getting merry with our money. Whilst ordinary people struggle with huge rises in bills not matched by their wages, the Conservative Party is a sewer of open corruption.
And yet the argument is that we should ignore the brazen misdirection of public money into Tory bank accounts. And vote for them anyway as a moral thing. Because Labour aren't in the correct absolutist position on whether theoretical trans women should be able to compete in women's sport.
Open massive corruption happening in front of us. Vs trans fear on an issue almost everyone has no actual involvement in. Its laughable. Is that all the Tories have left? Don't look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting a massive fine for tax dodginess or the PM appointing his pal to run the BBC in exchange for £800k. No no, these are the Moral people. Look instead at what Labour want to do to your womenfolk!
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
It should be the position. Though it begs the question as to whether violent sex offenders should be able to self ID into other female spaces.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
Very smug and the way you address Carlotta says it all, pig ignorant misogynist by the sounds of it.
Hey malc thanks for the compliment, how are you today?
As ever I am brilliant, could not be better.
Sorry, that insult above is a 3/10 - where is the lyricism? You can do so much better than that.
Mlamesbury , that was no insult , it was a reply on my well being. I am as happy as a pig in you know what, I have a great life , beautiful wife, daughter and grandchildren , good health so far, money ,nice house , nice SUV and so am happy happy happy and thank my blessings every day.
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
So by this adjacency = guilt logic, what about the Mermaids trustee who was advising paedophile lobby groups?
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I will be voting for neither the Tories nor Labour. So don't wrongly identify me in the red camp. You however are very firmly in the blue camp trying to make a moral argument why a vote for Labour is Wrong.
Zahawi is just the latest example of Tories getting merry with our money. Whilst ordinary people struggle with huge rises in bills not matched by their wages, the Conservative Party is a sewer of open corruption.
And yet the argument is that we should ignore the brazen misdirection of public money into Tory bank accounts. And vote for them anyway as a moral thing. Because Labour aren't in the correct absolutist position on whether theoretical trans women should be able to compete in women's sport.
Open massive corruption happening in front of us. Vs trans fear on an issue almost everyone has no actual involvement in. Its laughable. Is that all the Tories have left? Don't look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting a massive fine for tax dodginess or the PM appointing his pal to run the BBC in exchange for £800k. No no, these are the Moral people. Look instead at what Labour want to do to your womenfolk!
People do this a lot to you I've noticed, put you in one camp or the other. I think that just shows how objective you are in posting that you can see it from both sides.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David on this we're almost perfectly aligned. I don't often agree with you.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
I would add in something about "operational males" not supervising schoolgirls on school trips, or counting as women when doing police strip searches. But otherwise I would agree entirely.
Unfortunately that has me down as being a fellow traveller with the fascist religious right by those who aren't willing to talk about the details of the issue.
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I am a Labour member, not heard any of this. What on Earth are you talking about? Is this reading randomers on Twitter again?
Very smug and the way you address Carlotta says it all, pig ignorant misogynist by the sounds of it.
Hey malc thanks for the compliment, how are you today?
As ever I am brilliant, could not be better.
Sorry, that insult above is a 3/10 - where is the lyricism? You can do so much better than that.
Mlamesbury , that was no insult , it was a reply on my well being. I am as happy as a pig in you know what, I have a great life , beautiful wife, daughter and grandchildren , good health so far, money ,nice house , nice SUV and so am happy happy happy and thank my blessings every day.
As you should - and we're lucky to have you posting here, I enjoy your insults
The nature of Sir Laurie Magnus’ findings on Zahawi suggest that without public interest journalism - despite legal interventions that might have suppressed it - some of these details might never have come to light.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
Dismissing legitimate concerns as “culture war” is what got Sturgeon into the mess she’s in. Or do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
"Mess", I am sorry but deep down you know this will change absolutely nothing for her. I know you are desperate for her to do badly but let's be honest, she's going to win a majority of Scottish seats next time around and you know it
Dodging the question - do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
If a trans person wants to compete in men's chess then I don't see the problem no
You do know that there’s no such thing as men’s chess?
Same with equestrianism, sailing, motorsports, snooker, darts, and a whole load of other sports where the physical requirements are not the nature of the sport, and are open to all competitors.
That doesn’t mean that a man who says he’s a woman, should be allowed to run the 100m against women in the Olympics, nor compete in weightlifitng, cycling or a large number of other sports where physical attributes dominate, and the physical freaks that dominate the womens’ competition can be beaten by average men.
I'm going to leave the politics to others. The tax part of the Zahawi story, and therefore my role, feels over. But I wanted to sign off by correcting three takes which we’re going to hear a lot of, and I think are wrong.
The question for Vance is, your party has nuked the public finances, brought corruption and sleaze into Number 10 and into positions of power. And they are clearly, out of any ideas on how to fix the country - and they are out of touch with what the issues in the country actually are.
What on Earth would cause you not to vote for them? I know what made me not vote Labour, it was Iraq + Labour being out of ideas.
You're seriously telling me you'll vote for them on the basis of trans rights? Really?
That's an unbelievable letter - pompous, aggressive, and totally lacking in self-awareness.
Zahawi never gave a thorough account of his tax affairs, and it need to be dragged out of him whilst he ran around having his lawyers make legal threats against anyone asking questions. The press has all kinds of flaws, but this is one case where they really don't have anytghing to apologise for.
Also, can departing ministers stop going on about their pride in the role they played in the mourning period for the Queen? They basically did sod all, and just watched plans that had been carefully honed over many years being enacted by the civil service, police, armed forces etc.
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I am a Labour member, not heard any of this. What on Earth are you talking about? Is this reading randomers on Twitter again?
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
So by this adjacency = guilt logic, what about the Mermaids trustee who was advising paedophile lobby groups?
“What-aboutism” here in it’s purest form.
The guy was rightly sacked. There was never a time when Mermaids spread paedophile talking points that were already in the public eye, so your analogy fails completely.
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I am a Labour member, not heard any of this. What on Earth are you talking about? Is this reading randomers on Twitter again?
I'm going to leave the politics to others. The tax part of the Zahawi story, and therefore my role, feels over. But I wanted to sign off by correcting three takes which we’re going to hear a lot of, and I think are wrong.
His point that SLAPP tactics generally work is a good one, and therefore we are probably missing a lot of stories about the poor goings on amongst the elite because they can effectively silence criticism or questioning.
This affair shows, even under the most generous interpretation which he himself put on it, that Zahawi was an incompetent not fit for public office. But if he had had his way, that would not have been revealed and he might have been reappointed to an actually serious position.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
It was not meant to be you but as you should know living here it is a seriously big issue and danger in Scotland given the mental cases we have running the country at present. They came up with this seriously deranged policy , ignored all the public consultation , listened only to their pet groups like stonewall and other such organisations. They then refused all ECHR inputs , voted down sensible safeguards, claimed there was no evidence whatsoever of any transperson doing wrong and lo and behold we have been bombarded with evidence of wrong un's doing wrong and pretending to get into women's prisons etc. These numpties are unable to say a man is a man and should have no access to women's safe spaces, sports , etc. People on here are making out it is nothing and not a concern to people which is garbage. I care not about all the political right wing , left wing , feminists , etc bollox. A man with his block and tackle should not be allowed into women's areas whether wearing a frock or not.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
It was not meant to be you but as you should know living here it is a seriously big issue and danger in Scotland given the mental cases we have running the country at present. They came up with this seriously deranged policy , ignored all the public consultation , listened only to their pet groups like stonewall and other such organisations. They then refused all ECHR inputs , voted down sensible safeguards, claimed there was no evidence whatsoever of any transperson doing wrong and lo and behold we have been bombarded with evidence of wrong un's doing wrong and pretending to get into women's prisons etc. These numpties are unable to say a man is a man and should have no access to women's safe spaces, sports , etc. People on here are making out it is nothing and not a concern to people which is garbage. I care not about all the political right wing , left wing , feminists , etc bollox. A man with his block and tackle should not be allowed into women's areas whether wearing a frock or not.
PS ALL men are men , wearing a frock does not change that one bit.
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
It should be the position. Though it begs the question as to whether violent sex offenders should be able to self ID into other female spaces.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
By far the biggest chance of sexual assault or rape in prison is men on men. Well over 80,000 in US jails. You wonder what chance these trasgender women would have if put in a mens prison.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David on this we're almost perfectly aligned. I don't often agree with you.
I ink you would be surprised once we get past party politics. I often agree with your posts.
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I will be voting for neither the Tories nor Labour. So don't wrongly identify me in the red camp. You however are very firmly in the blue camp trying to make a moral argument why a vote for Labour is Wrong.
Zahawi is just the latest example of Tories getting merry with our money. Whilst ordinary people struggle with huge rises in bills not matched by their wages, the Conservative Party is a sewer of open corruption.
And yet the argument is that we should ignore the brazen misdirection of public money into Tory bank accounts. And vote for them anyway as a moral thing. Because Labour aren't in the correct absolutist position on whether theoretical trans women should be able to compete in women's sport.
Open massive corruption happening in front of us. Vs trans fear on an issue almost everyone has no actual involvement in. Its laughable. Is that all the Tories have left? Don't look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting a massive fine for tax dodginess or the PM appointing his pal to run the BBC in exchange for £800k. No no, these are the Moral people. Look instead at what Labour want to do to your womenfolk!
A pox on both of them , they are cheeks of the same arse
PS ALL men are men , wearing a frock does not change that one bit.
So my question for you on this would be, if a biological man has transitioned with surgery etc and wants to be called a woman, are you still going to insist they are a man? Because to me that just seems like bad manners, equivalent of repeatedly getting somebody's name wrong for example.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David: a biological male with a GRC is legally a woman for all purposes following the Haldane judgment. His sex is legally female. Therefore you cannot keep him out of a woman's prison because of his offences. And if he falls under the definition of gender reassignment under the GRA you may not be able to keep him out either because (a) there is no single sex exemption for prisons under the EA so you do not have the proportionate means for a legitimate purpose option and (b) doing so may amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
It is all very well coming up with these sensible proposals but they have been rejected by legislators when proposed by women and the current law - let alone proposed new ones - don't allow them either.
It would help - and I don't mean this personally against you - if those who opine on this topic actually engaged with the difficult legal and practical considerations involved. Rather than pretend that this is a culture war which affects hardly anyone. Redefining what a woman is in law affects every woman and the basis of her rights, indeed the existence of some of those rights.
The law on this is not easy to understand and is very complex. The recent cases on this area are also not easy to understand and depend on the particular facts. I have read pretty much all of them, several times. There is a lot of informed commentary from equality lawyers but it is real towel over head and hours of concentration time. Plus there are also the various policies and guidance. And there is a hell of a lot of misinformation being put out by lobby groups. Just correcting their errors could turn into a full-time job.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David on this we're almost perfectly aligned. I don't often agree with you.
I ink you would be surprised once we get past party politics. I often agree with your posts.
I try my best to not get too deep down that rabbit hole, often with little success. I am certain that at some point I will vote to remove Labour as I have done in the past, they don't have my vote regardless of anything they do.
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
So by this adjacency = guilt logic, what about the Mermaids trustee who was advising paedophile lobby groups?
“What-aboutism” here in it’s purest form.
The guy was rightly sacked. There was never a time when Mermaids spread paedophile talking points that were already in the public eye, so your analogy fails completely.
Saying whataboutism is not, in fact, a refutation. It's a moan. If you get to call other people fascists, they get to call you something even worse, about hurting children. Or we can drop the insanity and speak reasonably to one another.
David: a biological male with a GRC is legally a woman for all purposes following the Haldane judgment. His sex is legally female. Therefore you cannot keep him out of a woman's prison because of his offences. And if he falls under the definition of gender reassignment under the GRA you may not be able to keep him out either because (a) there is no single sex exemption for prisons under the EA so you do not have the proportionate means for a legitimate purpose option and (b) doing so may amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
It is all very well coming up with these sensible proposals but they have been rejected by legislators when proposed by women and the current law - let alone proposed new ones - don't allow them either.
It would help - and I don't mean this personally against you - if those who opine on this topic actually engaged with the difficult legal and practical considerations involved. Rather than pretend that this is a culture war which affects hardly anyone. Redefining what a woman is in law affects every woman and the basis of her rights, indeed the existence of some of those rights.
The law on this is not easy to understand and is very complex. The recent cases on this area are also not easy to understand and depend on the particular facts. I have read pretty much all of them, several times. There is a lot of informed commentary from equality lawyers but it is real towel over head and hours of concentration time. Plus there are also the various policies and guidance. And there is a hell of a lot of misinformation being put out by lobby groups. Just correcting their errors could turn into a full-time job.
You are here arguing in good faith - but I have very little confidence many others are.
Very smug and the way you address Carlotta says it all, pig ignorant misogynist by the sounds of it.
Hey malc thanks for the compliment, how are you today?
As ever I am brilliant, could not be better.
Sorry, that insult above is a 3/10 - where is the lyricism? You can do so much better than that.
Mlamesbury , that was no insult , it was a reply on my well being. I am as happy as a pig in you know what, I have a great life , beautiful wife, daughter and grandchildren , good health so far, money ,nice house , nice SUV and so am happy happy happy and thank my blessings every day.
Now I’m reminded of the story of Metallica.
The record company was upset with their quarrelling. So sent them all to therapy.
So the record company ended up with a heavy metal band of happy, well adjusted individuals who liked life and each other…
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
It should be the position. Though it begs the question as to whether violent sex offenders should be able to self ID into other female spaces.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
By far the biggest chance of sexual assault or rape in prison is men on men. Well over 80,000 in US jails. You wonder what chance these trasgender women would have if put in a mens prison.
Thankfully, while U.K. prisons have issues, they are a million miles from the hell holes they call prison in the US.
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
It should be the position. Though it begs the question as to whether violent sex offenders should be able to self ID into other female spaces.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
By far the biggest chance of sexual assault or rape in prison is men on men. Well over 80,000 in US jails. You wonder what chance these trasgender women would have if put in a mens prison.
US gang-culture, and prison-rape culture, is fortunately much less prevalent here.
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
It should be the position. Though it begs the question as to whether violent sex offenders should be able to self ID into other female spaces.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
By far the biggest chance of sexual assault or rape in prison is men on men. Well over 80,000 in US jails. You wonder what chance these trasgender women would have if put in a mens prison.
Which is why they should be in a special transgender wing. But women's prisons - and women themselves - are not shields for men who are transgender and should not be used to protect men from other men's violence. Women - including women prisoners - exist for themselves and not simply to serve the needs of men.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David on this we're almost perfectly aligned. I don't often agree with you.
I ink you would be surprised once we get past party politics. I often agree with your posts.
If you get beyond base politics, that's true for so many people.
When I was younger, one of my best friends was a railwayman who was so left wing that he made Dennis Skinner look like Margaret Thatcher. Yet after a few pints we'd realise we wanted the same basic thing: a 'better' country. We'd politely disagree over how we get there, but I would never, ever have said his objective was wrong. He wanted a Labour (*) government because he felt it would make a positive difference to people's lives.
Politics accentuates trivial differences and marks method as more important that objective.
(*) I congratulated him on the Friday night after Labour's 1997 election victory. He stared at me and replied: "Labour haven't won. The Tories won." He didn't like Blair...
PS ALL men are men , wearing a frock does not change that one bit.
So my question for you on this would be, if a biological man has transitioned with surgery etc and wants to be called a woman, are you still going to insist they are a man? Because to me that just seems like bad manners, equivalent of repeatedly getting somebody's name wrong for example.
Well, biologically they are still a man but happy for them to live and be seen as a woman for everyday purposes. Also happy for men to dress as women if they want and to be treated decently like any other person but NOT for them to be able to access womens safe spaces , sports , etc.
PS ALL men are men , wearing a frock does not change that one bit.
So my question for you on this would be, if a biological man has transitioned with surgery etc and wants to be called a woman, are you still going to insist they are a man? Because to me that just seems like bad manners, equivalent of repeatedly getting somebody's name wrong for example.
Well, biologically they are still a man but happy for them to live and be seen as a woman for everyday purposes. Also happy for men to dress as women if they want and to be treated decently like any other person but NOT for them to be able to access womens safe spaces , sports , etc.
So if they introduced themselves as Mary, you'd be happy to say she?
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David on this we're almost perfectly aligned. I don't often agree with you.
I ink you would be surprised once we get past party politics. I often agree with your posts.
If you get beyond base politics, that's true for so many people.
When I was younger, one of my best friends was a railwayman who was so left wing that he made Dennis Skinner look like Margaret Thatcher. Yet after a few pints we'd realise we wanted the same basic thing: a 'better' country. We'd politely disagree over how we get there, but I would never, ever have said his objective was wrong. He wanted a Labour (*) government because he felt it would make a positive difference to people's lives.
Politics accentuates trivial differences and marks method as more important that objective.
(*) I congratulated him on the Friday night after Labour's 1997 election victory. He stared at me and replied: "Labour haven't won. The Tories won." He didn't like Blair...
The government knows that some schools are in such a dangerous condition that they pose a threat to life - but refuse to tell parents Is it going to take a school actually collapsing on children's heads to convince our private school-using elite that state schools urgently need more money?
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
So by this adjacency = guilt logic, what about the Mermaids trustee who was advising paedophile lobby groups?
“What-aboutism” here in it’s purest form.
The guy was rightly sacked. There was never a time when Mermaids spread paedophile talking points that were already in the public eye, so your analogy fails completely.
He resigned. There is currently a formal Charity Commission investigation into Mermaids. The interesting questions for me are why and in what circumstances this person was ever thought fit to be appointed a trustee of such a charity. Something very concerning about their due diligence and governance which is why they are under investigation.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
Yes - and as trans women identifying criminals have the same pattern of offending as male criminals (and not biological women) that’s why the solution to their safety should not be to compromise women’s safety (most of whom are in prison for non violent offences).
The amendments you suggest above seem sensible, but don’t address the question of “self-ID” which is at the root of the Scottish governments bill. And as Haldane has ruled that a GRC changes sex “for all purposes” I’m not sure how your amendments would go unchallenged in court.
At the root of this is a lie - that you can “change your sex” - it’s impossible. Yes, you can change your gender, but where this has gone off the rails is the pretence that “sex is assigned” and “gender is innate” and hence more important than sex.
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
It should be the position. Though it begs the question as to whether violent sex offenders should be able to self ID into other female spaces.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
By far the biggest chance of sexual assault or rape in prison is men on men. Well over 80,000 in US jails. You wonder what chance these trasgender women would have if put in a mens prison.
Which is why they should be in a special transgender wing. But women's prisons - and women themselves - are not shields for men who are transgender and should not be used to protect men from other men's violence. Women - including women prisoners - exist for themselves and not simply to serve the needs of men.
Exactly why would you trash the rights and safety of 50% of the population just to suit 0.04% it is bonkers.
At the root of this is a lie - that you can “change your sex” - it’s impossible. Yes, you can change your gender, but where this has gone off the rails is the pretence that “sex is assigned” and “gender is innate” and hence more important than sex.
Literally nobody is claiming that. And it makes you look very silly saying that.
PS ALL men are men , wearing a frock does not change that one bit.
So my question for you on this would be, if a biological man has transitioned with surgery etc and wants to be called a woman, are you still going to insist they are a man? Because to me that just seems like bad manners, equivalent of repeatedly getting somebody's name wrong for example.
Well, biologically they are still a man but happy for them to live and be seen as a woman for everyday purposes. Also happy for men to dress as women if they want and to be treated decently like any other person but NOT for them to be able to access womens safe spaces , sports , etc.
So if they introduced themselves as Mary, you'd be happy to say she?
I would say hello Mary, why would I say she or he to someone that would be rude.
Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.
“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”
It will be interesting to see whether Yvette Cooper or David Blunkett face the same abuse. Her sensible comments this week are in direct contradiction of what some of her Shadow Cabinet colleagues have been saying. As for Starmer he is behaving like Corbyn on this in his refusal to stand up for women MPs bullied for speaking up about women's rights or to criticise or discipline those doing the bullying. Weak and disgraceful. But being so will not stop him becoming PM. It will just mean we get another variety of poor leadership.
I think the SNP have done Labour a huge political favour on this. Cooper got it right … and she is still in a job. Draw your own conclusions. Totally agree on Starmer’s weakness. It’s very disappointing.
Yes, I think Labour will do rather well in Scotland. Sturgeon misread the national mood on this issue.
Yes.
Starmer will quietly adopt the Extreme Ultra Rightwing Homophobic Misogynistic Racist TERF position on this - that violent sex offenders can’t self ID their way into women’s prisons.
The position that Sturgeon seems to be implementing…
It should be the position. Though it begs the question as to whether violent sex offenders should be able to self ID into other female spaces.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
By far the biggest chance of sexual assault or rape in prison is men on men. Well over 80,000 in US jails. You wonder what chance these trasgender women would have if put in a mens prison.
In the women’s prison, they only get to experience rape from the side of the rapist.
Which is a shitty situation for the women, who have no choice about where there are.
PS ALL men are men , wearing a frock does not change that one bit.
So my question for you on this would be, if a biological man has transitioned with surgery etc and wants to be called a woman, are you still going to insist they are a man? Because to me that just seems like bad manners, equivalent of repeatedly getting somebody's name wrong for example.
Well, biologically they are still a man but happy for them to live and be seen as a woman for everyday purposes. Also happy for men to dress as women if they want and to be treated decently like any other person but NOT for them to be able to access womens safe spaces , sports , etc.
So if they introduced themselves as Mary, you'd be happy to say she?
I would say hello Mary, why would I say she or he to someone that would be rude.
If you were referring to Mary, you might say "Mary is from Scotland, she lives in Edinburgh." Would you?
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
Yes - and as trans women identifying criminals have the same pattern of offending as male criminals (and not biological women) that’s why the solution to their safety should not be to compromise women’s safety (most of whom are in prison for non violent offences).
The amendments you suggest above seem sensible, but don’t address the question of “self-ID” which is at the root of the Scottish governments bill. And as Haldane has ruled that a GRC changes sex “for all purposes” I’m not sure how your amendments would go unchallenged in court.
At the root of this is a lie - that you can “change your sex” - it’s impossible. Yes, you can change your gender, but where this has gone off the rails is the pretence that “sex is assigned” and “gender is innate” and hence more important than sex.
Would Sturgeons action - sending the individual to a men’s prison - be legal under the law she has voted in?
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David on this we're almost perfectly aligned. I don't often agree with you.
I ink you would be surprised once we get past party politics. I often agree with your posts.
If you get beyond base politics, that's true for so many people.
When I was younger, one of my best friends was a railwayman who was so left wing that he made Dennis Skinner look like Margaret Thatcher. Yet after a few pints we'd realise we wanted the same basic thing: a 'better' country. We'd politely disagree over how we get there, but I would never, ever have said his objective was wrong. He wanted a Labour (*) government because he felt it would make a positive difference to people's lives.
Politics accentuates trivial differences and marks method as more important that objective.
(*) I congratulated him on the Friday night after Labour's 1997 election victory. He stared at me and replied: "Labour haven't won. The Tories won." He didn't like Blair...
Hope you are keeping well mate.
Yeah thanks, did another run yesterday, Huntingdon to Peterborough. The roads were busier than I liked (and remembered...) and the wind blowing across the Fens was blooming chilly, but I completed... eventually.
Hope you're feeling better.
(I actually started feeling really low during the run yesterday, which is unusual for me. The cloud soon passed, but it's odd how my mental mood can really fluctuate during exercise.)
At the root of this is a lie - that you can “change your sex” - it’s impossible. Yes, you can change your gender, but where this has gone off the rails is the pretence that “sex is assigned” and “gender is innate” and hence more important than sex.
Literally nobody is claiming that. And it makes you look very silly saying that.
Er .... Stonewall do claim that and have been campaigning for a long time to replace all references to sex in legislation with gender. I believe - but can check - that one of their witnesses in the Bailey case said that people could change sex over their lifetime. You should also check out some of the nonsense that Maggie Chapman the Green MSP has been saying on this.
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
So by this adjacency = guilt logic, what about the Mermaids trustee who was advising paedophile lobby groups?
“What-aboutism” here in it’s purest form.
The guy was rightly sacked. There was never a time when Mermaids spread paedophile talking points that were already in the public eye, so your analogy fails completely.
Saying whataboutism is not, in fact, a refutation. It's a moan. If you get to call other people fascists, they get to call you something even worse, about hurting children. Or we can drop the insanity and speak reasonably to one another.
I have called nobody here fascist.
I have said that people here are repeating fascist talking points & that I think that’s something they might want to reflect on. There’s a culture war going on where trans people are the target & using the same framing narrative arguments as the far right is a choice.
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I am a Labour member, not heard any of this. What on Earth are you talking about? Is this reading randomers on Twitter again?
You are plainly very selective in reading my posts….but do carry on mansplaining….
It’s not my fault the Tories are the only political party unambiguously on the same side of the argument as JK Rowling, Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.
I know you are arguing in bad faith because Yvette Cooper explained the Labour policy just two days ago, oddly you've never posted or commented on that, I wonder why?
Now I am leaving this issue.
You write about bad faith but refuse to engage in simple discussions over whether men who think they are women should compete in women’s sports (outside chess!) or be sent to women’s prisons.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
I am a Labour member, not heard any of this. What on Earth are you talking about? Is this reading randomers on Twitter again?
I've read that article, even though it's nearly a year old. In it, Starmer says:
“I believe in safe spaces for women. I’m very clear about those too. I think the 2010 act, the Equality Act, which does provide for safe spaces for women is right. And therefore I’m very straightforward about this.”
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty adjacent to your (and Cyclefree's) position?
At the root of this is a lie - that you can “change your sex” - it’s impossible. Yes, you can change your gender, but where this has gone off the rails is the pretence that “sex is assigned” and “gender is innate” and hence more important than sex.
Literally nobody is claiming that. And it makes you look very silly saying that.
Er .... Stonewall do claim that and have been campaigning for a long time to replace all references to sex in legislation with gender. I believe - but can check - that one of their witnesses in the Bailey case said that people could change sex over their lifetime. You should also check out some of the nonsense that Maggie Chapman the Green MSP has been saying on this.
My issue was with the point that people are saying you can change your sex. Nobody is claiming that.
Saying you want to change the law to refer to gender instead isn't the same thing.
I have said that people here are repeating fascist talking points & that I think that’s something they might want to reflect on. There’s a culture war going on where trans people are the target & using the same framing narrative arguments as the far right is a choice.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
Spot on David.
Shame we leave politics to politicians, we could do much better from the pool of PB talent.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David: a biological male with a GRC is legally a woman for all purposes following the Haldane judgment. His sex is legally female. Therefore you cannot keep him out of a woman's prison because of his offences. And if he falls under the definition of gender reassignment under the GRA you may not be able to keep him out either because (a) there is no single sex exemption for prisons under the EA so you do not have the proportionate means for a legitimate purpose option and (b) doing so may amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
It is all very well coming up with these sensible proposals but they have been rejected by legislators when proposed by women and the current law - let alone proposed new ones - don't allow them either.
It would help - and I don't mean this personally against you - if those who opine on this topic actually engaged with the difficult legal and practical considerations involved. Rather than pretend that this is a culture war which affects hardly anyone. Redefining what a woman is in law affects every woman and the basis of her rights, indeed the existence of some of those rights.
The law on this is not easy to understand and is very complex. The recent cases on this area are also not easy to understand and depend on the particular facts. I have read pretty much all of them, several times. There is a lot of informed commentary from equality lawyers but it is real towel over head and hours of concentration time. Plus there are also the various policies and guidance. And there is a hell of a lot of misinformation being put out by lobby groups. Just correcting their errors could turn into a full-time job.
I have also read the Scottish cases closely and, as I have pointed out before, they are inconsistent with each other. I suspect that Lady Haldane's judgment will be appealed and that might help produce some clarity.
S9 of the 2004 Act is unequivocal in its terms: a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes. The quid pro quo was that getting that certificate nearly always involved medical interventions, not just certification. The current bill gives the same unqualified rights but without the safeguards but those safeguards are only required in exceptional circumstances which I have tried to identify. You may quibble about the list but the idea that s9 needs qualification when a GRC is so readily available should not be so controversial.
What was required here was a grown up discussion between the Scottish Government and Westminster about minor reforms to the Equality Act. But everyone was desperate to play politics.
David: a biological male with a GRC is legally a woman for all purposes following the Haldane judgment. His sex is legally female. Therefore you cannot keep him out of a woman's prison because of his offences. And if he falls under the definition of gender reassignment under the GRA you may not be able to keep him out either because (a) there is no single sex exemption for prisons under the EA so you do not have the proportionate means for a legitimate purpose option and (b) doing so may amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
It is all very well coming up with these sensible proposals but they have been rejected by legislators when proposed by women and the current law - let alone proposed new ones - don't allow them either.
It would help - and I don't mean this personally against you - if those who opine on this topic actually engaged with the difficult legal and practical considerations involved. Rather than pretend that this is a culture war which affects hardly anyone. Redefining what a woman is in law affects every woman and the basis of her rights, indeed the existence of some of those rights.
The law on this is not easy to understand and is very complex. The recent cases on this area are also not easy to understand and depend on the particular facts. I have read pretty much all of them, several times. There is a lot of informed commentary from equality lawyers but it is real towel over head and hours of concentration time. Plus there are also the various policies and guidance. And there is a hell of a lot of misinformation being put out by lobby groups. Just correcting their errors could turn into a full-time job.
You are here arguing in good faith - but I have very little confidence many others are.
Nice of you to say so. I think one should try to engage with the arguments rather than dismiss them because of the perceived bad faith of those spreading them,. And I would be hesitant to say that about anyone.
There is a reluctance to do so because the arguments are (a) difficult and (b) touch on many different aspects of law, governance etc. So too many retreat to warm superficial mantras without much thinking and then get mugged by reality when a case like the Adam Graham case happens.
That may be OK on a private forum such as this. It is disastrous when it is done by politicians.
I'm going to leave the politics to others. The tax part of the Zahawi story, and therefore my role, feels over. But I wanted to sign off by correcting three takes which we’re going to hear a lot of, and I think are wrong.
There is a bizarre overlap with people who opposed to gay/lesbian rights and those now against trans rights.
I am sure there are exceptions - especially here - but the people with the loudest voices have a very dodgy history on progressive causes and I question if they can be trusted.
This just isn't true. There's so much opposition to the trans absolutism from the left-wing feminists who strongly supported gay rights that the trans absolutists cane up with their own insulting label for those people, TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
How many right-wing bigots are radical feminists?
Feminists joining fascist movements is as old as feminism sadly.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
So by this adjacency = guilt logic, what about the Mermaids trustee who was advising paedophile lobby groups?
“What-aboutism” here in it’s purest form.
The guy was rightly sacked. There was never a time when Mermaids spread paedophile talking points that were already in the public eye, so your analogy fails completely.
Saying whataboutism is not, in fact, a refutation. It's a moan. If you get to call other people fascists, they get to call you something even worse, about hurting children. Or we can drop the insanity and speak reasonably to one another.
I have called nobody here fascist.
I have said that people here are repeating fascist talking points & that I think that’s something they might want to reflect on. There’s a culture war going on where trans people are the target & using the same framing narrative arguments as the far right is a choice.
These are different things.
It's not a war. The war framing makes people feel good: the other side has fascists, and everyone knows you're allowed punch a Nazi. But it's not. It is merely incidental that your side in such a war would include the paedophile activists and the LSE misogynists fantasising about violating women for course credit.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
It would help…. if those who opine on this topic actually engaged with the difficult legal and practical considerations involved. Rather than pretend that this is a culture war which affects hardly anyone. Redefining what a woman is in law affects every woman and the basis of her rights, indeed the existence of some of those rights.
Surely not? Never seen that here! Just wild accusations of bad faith flung around instead of engagement with the issues.
It’s far too easy to lapse into “this is just a right wing culture war” and “it only affects a tiny proportion of the population” (slightly over 50% - ed,) than to engage with the issues. It’s symptomatic of the early “no debate” TRA /Stonewall position which has come so spectacularly unstuck.
I suspect we’d find most on here pretty much in the same place when it comes to balancing the competing rights - if Malc and I can be on the same page - (on this issue if nothing else!) just goes to show how thinking things through can lead to common ground.
Missing the Zahawi story was good fortune. One less sleazball from the Johnson era makes little difference except perhaps showing Suella Braverman in sharper relief.
We already did a few elections where Labour said "you've got no choice - the Tories are OBVIOUSLY so awful that you can't even question voting for us". They developed not entirely in favour of Miliband or Corbyn.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
I agree with this. Male violence against women is a much more important issue
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
David: a biological male with a GRC is legally a woman for all purposes following the Haldane judgment. His sex is legally female. Therefore you cannot keep him out of a woman's prison because of his offences. And if he falls under the definition of gender reassignment under the GRA you may not be able to keep him out either because (a) there is no single sex exemption for prisons under the EA so you do not have the proportionate means for a legitimate purpose option and (b) doing so may amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
It is all very well coming up with these sensible proposals but they have been rejected by legislators when proposed by women and the current law - let alone proposed new ones - don't allow them either.
It would help - and I don't mean this personally against you - if those who opine on this topic actually engaged with the difficult legal and practical considerations involved. Rather than pretend that this is a culture war which affects hardly anyone. Redefining what a woman is in law affects every woman and the basis of her rights, indeed the existence of some of those rights.
The law on this is not easy to understand and is very complex. The recent cases on this area are also not easy to understand and depend on the particular facts. I have read pretty much all of them, several times. There is a lot of informed commentary from equality lawyers but it is real towel over head and hours of concentration time. Plus there are also the various policies and guidance. And there is a hell of a lot of misinformation being put out by lobby groups. Just correcting their errors could turn into a full-time job.
I have also read the Scottish cases closely and, as I have pointed out before, they are inconsistent with each other. I suspect that Lady Haldane's judgment will be appealed and that might help produce some clarity.
S9 of the 2004 Act is unequivocal in its terms: a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes. The quid pro quo was that getting that certificate nearly always involved medical interventions, not just certification. The current bill gives the same unqualified rights but without the safeguards but those safeguards are only required in exceptional circumstances which I have tried to identify. You may quibble about the list but the idea that s9 needs qualification when a GRC is so readily available should not be so controversial.
What was required here was a grown up discussion between the Scottish Government and Westminster about minor reforms to the Equality Act. But everyone was desperate to play politics.
S.9 seems clear on the face of it. But I have seen lots of commentary from equality lawyers saying that the combination of it and the EA mean that it does not change gender let alone sex for all purposes. The hand grenade which the Haldane judgment has thrown into this is a problem which will need to be addressed.
I am not clear whether it will be appealed. If it isn't then we have an almighty mess, regardless of the outcome of the S.35 Order if it is judicially reviewed.
The EA certainly needs tightening up. 2 changes should be to make it clear that sex means biological sex (ie reversing the Haldane judgment) and providing a single sex exemption for women's prisons. I would also like to see service providers put under a duty to provide single sex spaces and not simply given an option to do so. Women who want or need these should not have to depend on the kindness of strangers.
We already did a few elections where Labour said "you've got no choice - the Tories are OBVIOUSLY so awful that you can't even question voting for us". They developed not entirely in favour of Miliband or Corbyn.
At the root of this is a lie - that you can “change your sex” - it’s impossible. Yes, you can change your gender, but where this has gone off the rails is the pretence that “sex is assigned” and “gender is innate” and hence more important than sex.
Literally nobody is claiming that. And it makes you look very silly saying that.
Er .... Stonewall do claim that and have been campaigning for a long time to replace all references to sex in legislation with gender. I believe - but can check - that one of their witnesses in the Bailey case said that people could change sex over their lifetime. You should also check out some of the nonsense that Maggie Chapman the Green MSP has been saying on this.
My issue was with the point that people are saying you can change your sex. Nobody is claiming that.
Saying you want to change the law to refer to gender instead isn't the same thing.
There are some politicians and TRAs who do say that people can change sex. They may be barking but it simply is not correct to say that nobody is claiming that.
I have said that people here are repeating fascist talking points & that I think that’s something they might want to reflect on. There’s a culture war going on where trans people are the target & using the same framing narrative arguments as the far right is a choice.
These are different things.
Hope you are well Phil
Thanks Horse. Keeping head up above water - finally got a bit of work coming in which will keep me busy this week.
This was obvious over a week ago, why did he sit on it?
He held on to Zahawi just long enough to demonstrate his weakness and inexperience before bowing to the inevitable.
He should write one for himself.
I agree with you there, but what would you suggest comes after that?
I would like the Tories to get a leader who is determined to fill what's left of their tenure with solutions to the problems faced by the country 'fill the unforgiving minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run'. I don't really care who - albeit that the track records of some would not fill me with confidence. Whether that leaves people wanting to re-elect them, or whether it doesn't, it's still the right thing to do.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Comments
Politicians use an 'I'm an idiot not a crook' defence all the time when they run out of options. Sometimes it's even true.
But the public was never going to buy that a guy who was Chancellor and ran to be PM was claiming to be so bad with finances he had to pay millions in penalties. Especially when he dissembled for months about it and clearly thinks he did nothing wrong.
I mean does anyone here believe he made an honest mistake?
In general I find the extremists on either side (eg punch a TERF v. Sturgeon deserves be raped by a trans person) unattractive not say on occasion deranged; I have to say on PB the deranged extremists tend to come from one side of the argument.
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
There’s nothing explicitly left wing about femininsm.
It would indeed have been far preferable for him to go a week ago, but Sunak either failed to recognise it or failed to get what he wanted.
Cyclefree posted Cooper’s comments - which she correctly observed blew up Labour’s TWAW absolutism. Now it appears to be TWAW except when they aren’t.
Nadhim now anti free speech?
https://www.google.co.uk/
With Sunak, the dither and delay all looks deeply botched. But it's not fundamentally dishonest (so colleagues look foolish but aren't wheeled out to lie) and they may well judge that a better political operation would improve the situation.
Which has made me feel pretty good.
As for politics .... Williamson and Zahawi gone. Now for Raab and Braverman and the execrable Retained EU Law Bill ......
The safeguards that are required by the GRR bill are relatively minor and should have been addressed during consideration. Basically, no genetic man who is convicted of sexual assaults against women can serve their sentence in a women's prison whilst being an operational male. No operational male who identifies as a woman is allowed in a woman's refuge. No one who has had the genetic advantage of growing up with male levels of testosterone is allowed to compete in women's competitive sport.
Apart from these small but important protections identify how you like, what business is it of ours?
Zahawi is just the latest example of Tories getting merry with our money. Whilst ordinary people struggle with huge rises in bills not matched by their wages, the Conservative Party is a sewer of open corruption.
And yet the argument is that we should ignore the brazen misdirection of public money into Tory bank accounts. And vote for them anyway as a moral thing. Because Labour aren't in the correct absolutist position on whether theoretical trans women should be able to compete in women's sport.
Open massive corruption happening in front of us. Vs trans fear on an issue almost everyone has no actual involvement in. Its laughable. Is that all the Tories have left? Don't look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting a massive fine for tax dodginess or the PM appointing his pal to run the BBC in exchange for £800k. No no, these are the Moral people. Look instead at what Labour want to do to your womenfolk!
The hamster may be dead, but the wheel is still spinning.
But the problem is that with the law as it currently stands you cannot actually do this, let alone if the GRR Bill is enacted. So we are back to politicians actually having to do something and the whole S.35 issue etc. Words come easily. But when the politicians uttering them don't actually understand the laws they are talking about, those words don't help.
Unfortunately that has me down as being a fellow traveller with the fascist religious right by those who aren't willing to talk about the details of the issue.
Brave sources. Cracking media lawyers. Great editors.
https://twitter.com/Annaisaac/status/1619636579332689920
Same with equestrianism, sailing, motorsports, snooker, darts, and a whole load of other sports where the physical requirements are not the nature of the sport, and are open to all competitors.
That doesn’t mean that a man who says he’s a woman, should be allowed to run the 100m against women in the Olympics, nor compete in weightlifitng, cycling or a large number of other sports where physical attributes dominate, and the physical freaks that dominate the womens’ competition can be beaten by average men.
The Junior (U17) 100m record is well under the women’s world record, and with that WR being the single most discredited record in history, so discredited that academic papers have been written on it. https://www.11alive.com/article/sports/olympics/100m-world-record-flo-jo-florence-griffith-joyner/85-7996e3d1-aa30-4185-9b29-96c416214ccf
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1619640133481029632
What on Earth would cause you not to vote for them? I know what made me not vote Labour, it was Iraq + Labour being out of ideas.
You're seriously telling me you'll vote for them on the basis of trans rights? Really?
Zahawi never gave a thorough account of his tax affairs, and it need to be dragged out of him whilst he ran around having his lawyers make legal threats against anyone asking questions. The press has all kinds of flaws, but this is one case where they really don't have anytghing to apologise for.
Also, can departing ministers stop going on about their pride in the role they played in the mourning period for the Queen? They basically did sod all, and just watched plans that had been carefully honed over many years being enacted by the civil service, police, armed forces etc.
The guy was rightly sacked. There was never a time when Mermaids spread paedophile talking points that were already in the public eye, so your analogy fails completely.
This affair shows, even under the most generous interpretation which he himself put on it, that Zahawi was an incompetent not fit for public office. But if he had had his way, that would not have been revealed and he might have been reappointed to an actually serious position.
They came up with this seriously deranged policy , ignored all the public consultation , listened only to their pet groups like stonewall and other such organisations. They then refused all ECHR inputs , voted down sensible safeguards, claimed there was no evidence whatsoever of any transperson doing wrong and lo and behold we have been bombarded with evidence of wrong un's doing wrong and pretending to get into women's prisons etc.
These numpties are unable to say a man is a man and should have no access to women's safe spaces, sports , etc.
People on here are making out it is nothing and not a concern to people which is garbage. I care not about all the political right wing , left wing , feminists , etc bollox. A man with his block and tackle should not be allowed into women's areas whether wearing a frock or not.
It is all very well coming up with these sensible proposals but they have been rejected by legislators when proposed by women and the current law - let alone proposed new ones - don't allow them either.
It would help - and I don't mean this personally against you - if those who opine on this topic actually engaged with the difficult legal and practical considerations involved. Rather than pretend that this is a culture war which affects hardly anyone. Redefining what a woman is in law affects every woman and the basis of her rights, indeed the existence of some of those rights.
The law on this is not easy to understand and is very complex. The recent cases on this area are also not easy to understand and depend on the particular facts. I have read pretty much all of them, several times. There is a lot of informed commentary from equality lawyers but it is real towel over head and hours of concentration time. Plus there are also the various policies and guidance. And there is a hell of a lot of misinformation being put out by lobby groups. Just correcting their errors could turn into a full-time job.
The record company was upset with their quarrelling. So sent them all to therapy.
So the record company ended up with a heavy metal band of happy, well adjusted individuals who liked life and each other…
When I was younger, one of my best friends was a railwayman who was so left wing that he made Dennis Skinner look like Margaret Thatcher. Yet after a few pints we'd realise we wanted the same basic thing: a 'better' country. We'd politely disagree over how we get there, but I would never, ever have said his objective was wrong. He wanted a Labour (*) government because he felt it would make a positive difference to people's lives.
Politics accentuates trivial differences and marks method as more important that objective.
(*) I congratulated him on the Friday night after Labour's 1997 election victory. He stared at me and replied: "Labour haven't won. The Tories won." He didn't like Blair...
Also happy for men to dress as women if they want and to be treated decently like any other person but NOT for them to be able to access womens safe spaces , sports , etc.
Is it going to take a school actually collapsing on children's heads to convince our private school-using elite that state schools urgently need more money?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jan/29/tell-us-which-schools-could-collapse-labour-will-force-ministers-to-reveal-data
The amendments you suggest above seem sensible, but don’t address the question of “self-ID” which is at the root of the Scottish governments bill. And as Haldane has ruled that a GRC changes sex “for all purposes” I’m not sure how your amendments would go unchallenged in court.
At the root of this is a lie - that you can “change your sex” - it’s impossible. Yes, you can change your gender, but where this has gone off the rails is the pretence that “sex is assigned” and “gender is innate” and hence more important than sex.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-specter-of-2016?r=f9j4c&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It is only a matter of time before the kompromat is revealed and Trump faces charges that will destroy him.
Which is a shitty situation for the women, who have no choice about where there are.
Hope you're feeling better.
(I actually started feeling really low during the run yesterday, which is unusual for me. The cloud soon passed, but it's odd how my mental mood can really fluctuate during exercise.)
I have said that people here are repeating fascist talking points & that I think that’s something they might want to reflect on. There’s a culture war going on where trans people are the target & using the same framing narrative arguments as the far right is a choice.
These are different things.
“I believe in safe spaces for women. I’m very clear about those too. I think the 2010 act, the Equality Act, which does provide for safe spaces for women is right. And therefore I’m very straightforward about this.”
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty adjacent to your (and Cyclefree's) position?
Saying you want to change the law to refer to gender instead isn't the same thing.
Shame we leave politics to politicians, we could do much better from the pool of PB talent.
S9 of the 2004 Act is unequivocal in its terms: a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes. The quid pro quo was that getting that certificate nearly always involved medical interventions, not just certification. The current bill gives the same unqualified rights but without the safeguards but those safeguards are only required in exceptional circumstances which I have tried to identify. You may quibble about the list but the idea that s9 needs qualification when a GRC is so readily available should not be so controversial.
What was required here was a grown up discussion between the Scottish Government and Westminster about minor reforms to the Equality Act. But everyone was desperate to play politics.
There is a reluctance to do so because the arguments are (a) difficult and (b) touch on many different aspects of law, governance etc. So too many retreat to warm superficial mantras without much thinking and then get mugged by reality when a case like the Adam Graham case happens.
That may be OK on a private forum such as this. It is disastrous when it is done by politicians.
It’s far too easy to lapse into “this is just a right wing culture war” and “it only affects a tiny proportion of the population” (slightly over 50% - ed,) than to engage with the issues. It’s symptomatic of the early “no debate” TRA /Stonewall position which has come so spectacularly unstuck.
I suspect we’d find most on here pretty much in the same place when it comes to balancing the competing rights - if Malc and I can be on the same page - (on this issue if nothing else!) just goes to show how thinking things through can lead to common ground.
Missing the Zahawi story was good fortune. One less sleazball from the Johnson era makes little difference except perhaps showing Suella Braverman in sharper relief.
I am not clear whether it will be appealed. If it isn't then we have an almighty mess, regardless of the outcome of the S.35 Order if it is judicially reviewed.
The EA certainly needs tightening up. 2 changes should be to make it clear that sex means biological sex (ie reversing the Haldane judgment) and providing a single sex exemption for women's prisons. I would also like to see service providers put under a duty to provide single sex spaces and not simply given an option to do so. Women who want or need these should not have to depend on the kindness of strangers.
We've got to 11am, hundreds of posts, and nobody's mentioned Brexit yet.
Oh bugger.
https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/breaking-number-of-properties-to-rent-has-halved-since-2019-say-agents/
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.