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.
I agree with you there, but the problem was that most people didn't think that the Tories were obviously awful and so the message didn't really cut through. Labour were saying 'Everything is shit' and quite a lot of people just were not seeing a dystopian hell (some were, of course). I think the mood may have shifted against the Tories somewhat in the interim.
But I agree, it's not a good strategy to rely entirely on that message.
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.
Maybe the difference this time is few are in little doubt that such a claim might now be correct.
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.
Fine, consider me corrected. Nobody sane is suggesting that, it's nothing like a common POV as Vance was implying, certainly not within the Labour Party.
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.
When I say appealed I do not necessarily mean overturned. Personally, I find her reasoning much more coherent and comprehensible than that of the LJC in the public duty case. The flaw is not really with the judges but with the underlying legislation as you pont out. It is inconsistent too and needs clarification.
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.
Maybe the difference this time is few are in little doubt that such a claim might now be correct.
I think there is something in this, Pete.
What has happened is that we Brexited, the Tories claimed they weren't able to actually deliver it because of Labour getting in the way. It's now been three years with Labour unable to do anything and things are only getting worse. That is why this message now cuts through.
People are able to see now, that despite being in power there last 13 years, things really were better under Labour. And that is why Labour is 29 points ahead. The Tories saying they need more time rings so hollow and still blaming Labour 13 years on just makes them look pathetic.
Time for a change with a sensible and restrained leader is what Labour is offering - something Keir Starmer was made to do.
For the scenario Labour has found itself in - which I explained in some detail when he was elected - Labour have chosen their best leader for two decades.
It is only a matter of time before the kompromat is revealed and Trump faces charges that will destroy him.
Read this about 1000 times on here since 2020. There isn't enough time to get an indictment never mind a conviction that exhausts all avenues of appeal.
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
Not sure if others with more knowledge have heard this but having a coffee with a friend last night who is Chief Pharmacist for a big Health Trust, he was bemoaning the fate of High Street pharmacy. He says he expects Lloyds Pharmacy to be out of business this year and many other smaller pharmacies to follow. Apparently Lloyds shutting all their Sainsbury outlets is just the tip of the iceberg.
He is not someone normally given to doom and gloom nor much interested in discussing politics (strange fellow!) but he is very downbeat about the highstreet pharmacy sector.
A large share of that 29% lead thought Boris was brilliant. Anyone professing to know what they will think by late 2024 needs to be pretty smart cookies!
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.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell 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?
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.
When I say appealed I do not necessarily mean overturned. Personally, I find her reasoning much more coherent and comprehensible than that of the LJC in the public duty case. The flaw is not really with the judges but with the underlying legislation as you pont out. It is inconsistent too and needs clarification.
The Haldane judgment applies in Scotland. But does it also apply in England & Wales? Or is it simply that the reasoning adopted there could be used in a case in E&W?
I am not clear on this.
Also which takes precedence: this judgment or the earlier Scottish case relating to women on public boards?
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.
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.
Labour wasn't 29 points ahead
Also, consider the *relative* offerings
Miliband would be 29 points ahead at this point.
Chris Curtis looked at this and said, no he wouldn't
Not sure if others with more knowledge have heard this but having a coffee with a friend last night who is Chief Pharmacist for a big Health Trust, he was bemoaning the fate of High Street pharmacy. He says he expects Lloyds Pharmacy to be out of business this year and many other smaller pharmacies to follow. Apparently Lloyds shutting all their Sainsbury outlets is just the tip of the iceberg.
He is not someone normally given to doom and gloom nor much interested in discussing politics (strange fellow!) but he is very downbeat about the highstreet pharmacy sector.
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.
Labour wasn't 29 points ahead
Also, consider the *relative* offerings
Miliband would be 29 points ahead at this point.
Chris Curtis looked at this and said, no he wouldn't
Yes, I think Starmer is noticeably less ideological and more pragmatic than Miliband. And I therefore feel likely to be a better PM.
I start from the position that I don't care what people do with their lives as long as it doesn't harm themselves or others. It causes no harm to me if someone wants to change their gender and have that recognised.
Trans men and trans women are some of the most vulnerable people in society and it boils my piss to see them being treated as a political football. They need to be treated with respect, and allowed to live their lives. Anything we can do as a society to help that, we should, even if that includes some legislative safeguards to protect safe spaces for women which I'd support. We can't be absolutist that one person's rights trumps another person's rights.
Violence against women is also a very serious issue, and it continues to be seemingly ignored. Men are going to continue to find ways to abuse/rape/murder women if they can, but it does seem that most of the violence against women we hear about doesn't involve men dressing up as women or involve trans women. Instead its domestic abusers, mysoginistic police officers, positions of power being abused, and so on. Time to properly tackle violence against women in all its forms.
I agree with other posters too that none of this is moving the political dial, so would suggest politicians also focus on other things that matter e.g. the economy, inflation, the NHS etc.
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.
Labour wasn't 29 points ahead
Also, consider the *relative* offerings
Miliband would be 29 points ahead at this point.
Chris Curtis looked at this and said, no he wouldn't
Yes, I think Starmer is noticeably less ideological and more pragmatic than Miliband. And I therefore feel likely to be a better PM.
Starmer is the most pragmatic leader Labour has had since Blair.
He is not routed in factionalism and left wing purity, he is intent on winning power and making positive change.
I genuinely think he's a modern day Blair, not with the charisma but with the purpose.
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
I start from the position that I don't care what people do with their lives as long as it doesn't harm themselves or others. It causes no harm to me if someone wants to change their gender and have that recognised.
Trans men and trans women are some of the most vulnerable people in society and it boils my piss to see them being treated as a political football. They need to be treated with respect, and allowed to live their lives. Anything we can do as a society to help that, we should, even if that includes some legislative safeguards to protect safe spaces for women which I'd support. We can't be absolutist that one person's rights trumps another person's rights.
Violence against women is also a very serious issue, and it continues to be seemingly ignored. Men are going to continue to find ways to abuse/rape/murder women if they can, but it does seem that most of the violence against women we hear about doesn't involve men dressing up as women or involve trans women. Instead its domestic abusers, mysoginistic police officers, positions of power being abused, and so on. Time to properly tackle violence against women in all its forms.
I agree with other posters too that none of this is moving the political dial, so would suggest politicians also focus on other things that matter e.g. the economy, inflation, the NHS etc.
Hope you are keeping well my fellow Hants friend - as usual an excellent post, the smartest people come from our great county clearly
Trans rights - and the Woke Wars in general - will not significantly affect the outcome of the next GE. Economic concerns - from inflation to taxes to funding of the NHS - utterly outweigh everything else
But that won’t always be the case. Wokery is only getting worse and culture war issues - like migration - are only intensifying
One day soon it WILL swing a general election, in the UK and elsewhere
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 point about SLAPP tactics which make it financially impossible for journalists to investigate stories unless they have very well financed and committed backing, is perhaps the most important one. Such abuse of the legal system by the rich will remain, long after this government is history, unless something is done about it. It needs addressing.
Not sure if others with more knowledge have heard this but having a coffee with a friend last night who is Chief Pharmacist for a big Health Trust, he was bemoaning the fate of High Street pharmacy. He says he expects Lloyds Pharmacy to be out of business this year and many other smaller pharmacies to follow. Apparently Lloyds shutting all their Sainsbury outlets is just the tip of the iceberg.
He is not someone normally given to doom and gloom nor much interested in discussing politics (strange fellow!) but he is very downbeat about the highstreet pharmacy sector.
The Lloyds pharmacy in our village has had poor service for about five years, and has just become terrible, with it being shut regularly without warning. Apparently / allegedly they have trouble finding a pharmacist.
This has proved really inconvenient for many people, including a friend with a disabled child.
One thing I'd note: there has been some abuse of the staff from customers, which would not have helped. But I can also understand people getting annoyed at what has been really poor service, even when they're open. Lost/missed prescriptions; prescriptions not being ready on time, not answering the phone, etc. It doesn't excuse abuse, but the two factors probably feed into each other: poor service leading to a little abuse, leading to more poor service...
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?
I don't see why I would not , obviously it would depend on the scenario but sounds a bit like desperation to try and get me to say no which is not the case. I do think all the pronoun crap is just that and I would use what I thought was the reality in front of me not some made up garbage.
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
It is not social change you need but biological change.
Personally if the GRR Bill gets through I am planning to move to Scotland for the required period, legally become a man (I have short hair, wear trousers most of the time and my first name is also a man's name) and look forward to a big increase in what I am paid, no longer being at high risk of sexual assault, having my bullshit taken seriously, indeed reverentially, and being able to date handsome gay men I've fancied for years. Surely a column in the Guardian cannot be far behind.
Bring it on I say!
(This may not be an entirely serious suggestion but it is Sunday morning and if one cannot make mischief then, well what is the world coming to .....).
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.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
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.
They would not even discuss it with the Scottish people so little just they would do anything sensible re Westminster.
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 point about SLAPP tactics which make it financially impossible for journalists to investigate stories unless they have very well financed and committed backing, is perhaps the most important one. Such abuse of the legal system by the rich will remain, long after this government is history, unless something is done about it. It needs addressing.
Our Libel laws are a blot on this nation. The way they were used by Russian oligarchs to quash reporting in this country about their activities is just one shameful episode in a long history.
How should they be reformed? Do any of the lawyers here have any insight?
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Sounds a very edgy edge case. FTM in M sport sounds fine to me, and s/he probably could and should have been dqed from F for drugs.
Not sure if others with more knowledge have heard this but having a coffee with a friend last night who is Chief Pharmacist for a big Health Trust, he was bemoaning the fate of High Street pharmacy. He says he expects Lloyds Pharmacy to be out of business this year and many other smaller pharmacies to follow. Apparently Lloyds shutting all their Sainsbury outlets is just the tip of the iceberg.
He is not someone normally given to doom and gloom nor much interested in discussing politics (strange fellow!) but he is very downbeat about the highstreet pharmacy sector.
What is the reason for this?
Not sure. A shortage of pharmacists is one reason but apparently they are massively losing money.
It sounds to me like you might have SAD. Seasonal Affective Disorder. A lot of people get it in a mild way - the British winter is dark and dour. But some people get it quite seriously - I know because I am one of them - and it can be mood crushing and lead to self destructive behaviour or deep deep glooms
I have friends who have it even worse than me
There are remedies - obviously escaping to the sun is the best, but for many that is totally not feasible, but you can still take other steps to make it more bearable
Maybe go to your GP and ask for advice. Don’t let them fob you off. SAD is a real thing
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
FFS are you cuckoo, you cannot change sex and it will never be possible.
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
It is not social change you need but biological change.
Personally if the GRR Bill gets through I am planning to move to Scotland for the required period, legally become a man (I have short hair, wear trousers most of the time and my first name is also a man's name) and look forward to a big increase in what I am paid, no longer being at high risk of sexual assault, having my bullshit taken seriously, indeed reverentially, and being able to date handsome gay men I've fancied for years. Surely a column in the Guardian cannot be far behind.
Bring it on I say!
(This may not be an entirely serious suggestion but it is Sunday morning and if one cannot make mischief then, well what is the world coming to .....).
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
Not sure if others with more knowledge have heard this but having a coffee with a friend last night who is Chief Pharmacist for a big Health Trust, he was bemoaning the fate of High Street pharmacy. He says he expects Lloyds Pharmacy to be out of business this year and many other smaller pharmacies to follow. Apparently Lloyds shutting all their Sainsbury outlets is just the tip of the iceberg.
He is not someone normally given to doom and gloom nor much interested in discussing politics (strange fellow!) but he is very downbeat about the highstreet pharmacy sector.
The Lloyds pharmacy in our village has had poor service for about five years, and has just become terrible, with it being shut regularly without warning. Apparently / allegedly they have trouble finding a pharmacist.
This has proved really inconvenient for many people, including a friend with a disabled child.
One thing I'd note: there has been some abuse of the staff from customers, which would not have helped. But I can also understand people getting annoyed at what has been really poor service, even when they're open. Lost/missed prescriptions; prescriptions not being ready on time, not answering the phone, etc. It doesn't excuse abuse, but the two factors probably feed into each other: poor service leading to a little abuse, leading to more poor service...
And our GP service is also really, really poor.
I have to say we are extremely fortunate with our GP. They are always looking at new ways to improve the service in the face of ongoing staffing issues and seem to have hit on a very effective system using the 'Ask my GP' system as a triage which ensures people get seen same day where needed.
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?
I don't see why I would not , obviously it would depend on the scenario but sounds a bit like desperation to try and get me to say no which is not the case. I do think all the pronoun crap is just that and I would use what I thought was the reality in front of me not some made up garbage.
But if you got somebody's - what they consider to be - gender wrong and called a man a woman and they corrected you, would you listen or just carry on getting it wrong? To me making an honest mistake is fine but I know too many people that get these things wrong on purpose, I find it just as rude as getting somebody's name wrong continuously.
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
FFS are you cuckoo, you cannot change sex and it will never be possible.
You don't know that. Some animals are capable of it.
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
The alternative being a situation where biological women competing as women can't win any professional sport when there is a trans competitor taking part? Who do you choose to screw over?
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
FFS are you cuckoo, you cannot change sex and it will never be possible.
Maybe one day we'll even be able to do something about stupidity.
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?
I don't see why I would not , obviously it would depend on the scenario but sounds a bit like desperation to try and get me to say no which is not the case. I do think all the pronoun crap is just that and I would use what I thought was the reality in front of me not some made up garbage.
But if you got somebody's - what they consider to be - gender wrong and called a man a woman and they corrected you, would you listen or just carry on getting it wrong? To me making an honest mistake is fine but I know too many people that get these things wrong on purpose, I find it just as rude as getting somebody's name wrong continuously.
of course I would but would not use anything other than he or she
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.
Labour wasn't 29 points ahead
Also, consider the *relative* offerings
Miliband would be 29 points ahead at this point.
It’s not impossible that the current version of Milliband would be further ahead. He’s certainly a far better Commons performer these days than is Starmer.
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 point about SLAPP tactics which make it financially impossible for journalists to investigate stories unless they have very well financed and committed backing, is perhaps the most important one. Such abuse of the legal system by the rich will remain, long after this government is history, unless something is done about it. It needs addressing.
Our Libel laws are a blot on this nation. The way they were used by Russian oligarchs to quash reporting in this country about their activities is just one shameful episode in a long history.
How should they be reformed? Do any of the lawyers here have any insight?
Largely abolished in my view, certainly for people in the public eye. Something along the lines of what they have in the US is better. But am no expert.
There was a campaign a while back to update the libel laws as a result of what a science writer, Simon Singh, endured and it led to the 2103 Defamation Act. But it is still too heavily weighted in favour of the rich. We do not have a clear commitment to free speech, unlike in the US, and it is one reason why I believe that libel rulings by the U.K. courts are not automatically enforced in the US.
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?
I don't see why I would not , obviously it would depend on the scenario but sounds a bit like desperation to try and get me to say no which is not the case. I do think all the pronoun crap is just that and I would use what I thought was the reality in front of me not some made up garbage.
But if you got somebody's - what they consider to be - gender wrong and called a man a woman and they corrected you, would you listen or just carry on getting it wrong? To me making an honest mistake is fine but I know too many people that get these things wrong on purpose, I find it just as rude as getting somebody's name wrong continuously.
of course I would but would not use anything other than he or she
If they want to be called they, why not be reasonable? I just don't get it, I don't personally use pronouns but if somebody wants to be called they I don't see the problem. People get really wound up about it but I really so it no differently than me saying I want to be called Horse
Re; Miliband and Starmer, as I remember Starmer only actually became an MP because Miliband asked him to be.
So rather than Miliband being the ideologue and Starmer the pragmatist, I'd say they've always been soft-left kindred spirits.
We also asked Starmer to run for the leadership but he considered himself too young. I would say where he has grown to proves him to have made a wise call there.
Milliband is ideological but he was also advised incredibly badly. He should have leant into the cool nerd vibe, that would have done him quite well.
The alternative being a situation where biological women competing as women can't win any professional sport when there is a trans competitor taking part? Who do you choose to screw over?
It's currently unsolved Richard - and I am honest in saying I do not know what to do.
I hope you are staying well, glad to see you posting a bit more frequently.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
He's become much more natural, away from unremitting media hostility, and much better as a media, and Commons, perfomer these days. I would say he's only ideological in the sense that he saw flaws in the British economic model well before it was fashionable, which was first copied by May, in a window-dressing sort of way, and then to a certain extent by Boris.
Starmer in fact shares this view, of our more flawed economic model, and the Blair/Thatcher consensus doesn't really hold any longer.
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.
Labour wasn't 29 points ahead
Also, consider the *relative* offerings
Miliband would be 29 points ahead at this point.
Chris Curtis looked at this and said, no he wouldn't
Yes, I think Starmer is noticeably less ideological and more pragmatic than Miliband. And I therefore feel likely to be a better PM.
Yes, I think, on balance, I was exaggerating. Miliband didn’t have the skills to cautiously pick his way through the trans debate, for example. Starmer has managed to manoeuvre his way to a moderate position on this, without setting the Left of his party on fire.
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
FFS are you cuckoo, you cannot change sex and it will never be possible.
You don't know that. Some animals are capable of it.
Indeed, and the genes responsible for sexual characteristics go way beyond XY/XX and have been manipulated in mammalian models both in utero and postnatally. By the manipulation of the expression of such genes, by my recollection, it was possible to get XY mammals to present as entirely female sex.
We know, from nature, the binary is a very good rule of thumb, but it is a rule of thumb, and there are complexities out there in the form of intersex sexes that demonstrate a bit of flexibility is possible.
That it one day will be possible to meaningfully change biological sex in these ways I think is a given. Whether it will happen, and to what degree it might be possible are unknown. But, not to set Leon off, by the time we're making changes like that, it's the end of Homo sapiens 1.0 - assuming AI hasn't murdered us all.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
I come from a position of inclusion being the default in sport, and where exclusion has to have very strong reasons. For me, safety is a really important factor, and I can well see why some trans athletes may be excluded from sports like rugby.
Fairness in sport is a curious concept, as all top athletes are essentially freaks of nature to one degree or another. It's not the fact they train harder than any of us; they have massive inbuilt advantages. Also, access to training facilities also grants massive advantages (which is one reason why smaller but richer countries such as the UK or Australia punch above our weight in the medal tables).
And we should not forget the wrongs that were done to Caster Semenya either.
Professional sport to be honest again seems like a bit of a small issue played up as a massive problem and a reason to push all of these rights back - that is certainly the angle the Mail takes for example. I am not saying that is the case with people commenting here.
I genuinely don't know what to do, perhaps a separate category is necessary but then how can that ever be fair, you'd literally have biological men competing with biological women
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 point about SLAPP tactics which make it financially impossible for journalists to investigate stories unless they have very well financed and committed backing, is perhaps the most important one. Such abuse of the legal system by the rich will remain, long after this government is history, unless something is done about it. It needs addressing.
Our Libel laws are a blot on this nation. The way they were used by Russian oligarchs to quash reporting in this country about their activities is just one shameful episode in a long history.
How should they be reformed? Do any of the lawyers here have any insight?
Largely abolished in my view, certainly for people in the public eye. Something along the lines of what they have in the US is better. But am no expert.
There was a campaign a while back to update the libel laws as a result of what a science writer, Simon Singh, endured and it led to the 2103 Defamation Act. But it is still too heavily weighted in favour of the rich. We do not have a clear commitment to free speech, unlike in the US, and it is one reason why I believe that libel rulings by the U.K. courts are not automatically enforced in the US.
Which is a pretty big thing to do.
More - in US law, specifically passed, libel law judgements in the U.K. are automatically *not* enforceable in the US.
There was much wailing when this happened - in the U.K. certain lawyers had made big plans for libel tourism - get a judgement in London, then use it round the world to shut people 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.
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
The alternative being a situation where biological women competing as women can't win any professional sport when there is a trans competitor taking part? Who do you choose to screw over?
I’m not an expert in this stuff at all, but my understanding is that a trans women who is taking hormones ends up with very similar muscle levels to women - athletes that transition from male to female report significant muscle loss.
So far at least we haven’t seen the kind of total domination of women’s competition by transitioned athletes that you’d expect if “women can’t win any professional sport” were the inevitable outcome of allowing transwomen who are taking hormones to compete.
Has a trans women even won an event at the elite level? I may have missed the news but I can’t recall anything like that: There was a US track athlete who won bronze a year or two ago IIRC?
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
I come from a position of inclusion being the default in sport, and where exclusion has to have very strong reasons. For me, safety is a really important factor, and I can well see why some trans athletes may be excluded from sports like rugby.
Fairness in sport is a curious concept, as all top athletes are essentially freaks of nature to one degree or another. It's not the fact they train harder than any of us; they have massive inbuilt advantages. Also, access to training facilities also grants massive advantages (which is one reason why smaller but richer countries such as the UK or Australia punch above our weight in the medal tables).
And we should not forget the wrongs that were done to Caster Semenya either.
The Semenya case is awful, she's had her life taken away because of something she was born with. Not very loving is it
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.
At some point changing sex might be something we can actually do. Right now, not so much.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
FFS are you cuckoo, you cannot change sex and it will never be possible.
A great amount of biological sex is determined by hormones, and so it's more malleable than you might imagine. Now, for most people, hormones are regulated by genetics and so it's normally quite easy to draw an equivalence between genetics and sex without realising that it's happening via hormones.
This means that it is possible for a genetically biological male, with the right hormone treatment, to breastfeed a baby. A friend of mine from university did this a few years ago. Ultimately, therefore, it's conceivable that we're not a huge amount of medical advancement away from a genetic, biological male from receiving sufficient hormone treatment, and a transplant operation, and then carrying a foetus to term and giving birth. Given the advances being made towards growing people replacement kidneys in the lab from their own stem cells, and eventually you can conceive of growing a man a womb and ovaries in the lab that match their genetics.
To most intents and purposes a man receiving such treatment would have changed sex and become female, although they would be reliant on continuing hormone treatment.
This is all a long way from self-ID being used to change legal sex with no medical treatment being received, but the biology is a lot more complicated and nuanced.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
I reminded of someone I knew from (as I remember) Latvia who puzzled over our lack of a word for 'a happy funeral'.
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
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
All very nice. But someone will have to answer the question.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
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 point about SLAPP tactics which make it financially impossible for journalists to investigate stories unless they have very well financed and committed backing, is perhaps the most important one. Such abuse of the legal system by the rich will remain, long after this government is history, unless something is done about it. It needs addressing.
Our Libel laws are a blot on this nation. The way they were used by Russian oligarchs to quash reporting in this country about their activities is just one shameful episode in a long history.
How should they be reformed? Do any of the lawyers here have any insight?
Largely abolished in my view, certainly for people in the public eye. Something along the lines of what they have in the US is better. But am no expert.
There was a campaign a while back to update the libel laws as a result of what a science writer, Simon Singh, endured and it led to the 2103 Defamation Act. But it is still too heavily weighted in favour of the rich. We do not have a clear commitment to free speech, unlike in the US, and it is one reason why I believe that libel rulings by the U.K. courts are not automatically enforced in the US.
Which is a pretty big thing to do.
This government, if anything, is more interested in reducing free speech rights. See for example Braverman’s efforts on narrowing the right to protest.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
I reminded of someone I knew from (as I remember) Latvia who puzzled over our lack of a word for 'a happy funeral'.
When I lived in Japan a friend there who was diligently studying Japanese - and failing (it is so hard) - told me that there is a single Japanese word for “it is time you went and had a really short and neat haircut”. Which actually would be quite useful
The lack of an English word to describe what I’m experiencing - which is quite different to happiness - is telling
I wonder if the equivalent exists in any language anywhere
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
I come from a position of inclusion being the default in sport, and where exclusion has to have very strong reasons. For me, safety is a really important factor, and I can well see why some trans athletes may be excluded from sports like rugby.
Fairness in sport is a curious concept, as all top athletes are essentially freaks of nature to one degree or another. It's not the fact they train harder than any of us; they have massive inbuilt advantages. Also, access to training facilities also grants massive advantages (which is one reason why smaller but richer countries such as the UK or Australia punch above our weight in the medal tables).
And we should not forget the wrongs that were done to Caster Semenya either.
Female categories in sports such as swimming are essentially a disability category. And a fairly uncontroversial category at that. I don't think saying "because lots of other things are unfair in sport we shouldn't care about maintaining fairness in this respect" is a particularly good argument.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Re; Miliband and Starmer, as I remember Starmer only actually became an MP in the first place because Miliband asked him to be.
So rather than Miliband being the ideologue and Starmer the pragmatist, I'd say they've always in fact been soft-left kindred spirits.
Yes, you can’t fairly compare Starmer now with Milliband then. If the latter were Labour leader today, he’d probably be seen very differently.
Yes, he's also far more fluent than he used to be, and the Tories are also making much more of a mess of things across the board than before.
I expect Starmer to give him a big job, not least to keep the soft-left/soft-right balance of the party steady and stable, but also because he's done good things in the climate position.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
Serenity is too passive and again non-physical
I need a word for the sensation of lying in a hammock at ///eliminator.gigantic.tables after fish curry and Tuskers for lunch, having just spent a week riding a chestnut stallion clean across the Masai Mara.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
Serenity is too passive and again non-physical
Bangkokked.
As an aside, someone did ask ChatGPT to come up with some options for emotions we don’t have words for. You might try that.
If, in the 'modern' way of thinking, being a man or a woman has nothing to do with biology why not just have a sporting category for those with a XX chromosome. Since that may include both men and women there is no case for it being discriminatory. Perhaps the same logic could apply to some other things as well.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
Serenity is too passive and again non-physical
I need a word for the sensation of lying in a hammock at ///eliminator.gigantic.tables after fish curry and Tuskers for lunch, having just spent a week riding a chestnut stallion clean across the Masai Mara.
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.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
Serenity is too passive and again non-physical
I need a word for the sensation of lying in a hammock at ///eliminator.gigantic.tables after fish curry and Tuskers for lunch, having just spent a week riding a chestnut stallion clean across the Masai Mara.
I imagine you are feeling something similar to me!
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
Serenity is too passive and again non-physical
I need a word for the sensation of lying in a hammock at ///eliminator.gigantic.tables after fish curry and Tuskers for lunch, having just spent a week riding a chestnut stallion clean across the Masai Mara.
Knackered?
That was yesterday and about 20 hours of sleep ago.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
"on holiday"?
Absolutely not. Because I am working hard as well. Indeed I am working better than normal because my mind is very clear because I am so destressed and Bangkokked (Thankyou @Nigelb).
And again this isn’t just me. My American friend, an academic with a book to write, says the same too. He is working BETTER out here
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
I take issue with this, if they genuinely believe they are a woman then who am I to say they aren't?
What else is a matter of self identification? Race?
Gender which is what I refer, is a concept made up by society, frequently we've had more than two genders in history.
Classical Arabic, the language of the Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) and the Glorious Quran, has five additional words for genders beyond male and female: khasi, khuntha, mukhannath, mamsuh and hijrah.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
I take issue with this, if they genuinely believe they are a woman then who am I to say they aren't?
And if they genuinely believe they are a horse, who are you to say they aren't. And why should anyone stop them running in the 2:30 at Ascot.
Honestly......
Please don't respond in such a way, I just really don't see the problem. If they want to say their gender is female or a donkey, then why should I care? It doesn't impact me. If they want to be an idiot and run in a horse race then that's up to them.
I just don't see how this particular part impacts on you, can you explain?
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.
Also FPT:
Landlords are unlikely to be on long-term fixed interest rate mortgages, government policy has been to slowly discourage small landlords with changes such as the inability to claim interest payments against income tax, there’s evidence of sale prices having reached a peak and starting to fall this year.
All of which is leading to landlords selling up, and a suppply squeeze for rental properties leading to price increases.
I was one of those landlords, albeit not in London.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Comments
But I agree, it's not a good strategy to rely entirely on that message.
What has happened is that we Brexited, the Tories claimed they weren't able to actually deliver it because of Labour getting in the way. It's now been three years with Labour unable to do anything and things are only getting worse. That is why this message now cuts through.
People are able to see now, that despite being in power there last 13 years, things really were better under Labour. And that is why Labour is 29 points ahead. The Tories saying they need more time rings so hollow and still blaming Labour 13 years on just makes them look pathetic.
Time for a change with a sensible and restrained leader is what Labour is offering - something Keir Starmer was made to do.
For the scenario Labour has found itself in - which I explained in some detail when he was elected - Labour have chosen their best leader for two decades.
I actually look forward to the day that we live an a Banksian SF future where sex is just another choice people can make. Personal bodily autonomy meets techo-futurism.
Perhaps trans people are the vanguard movement of this long future. A messy, awkward and challenging vanguard to be sure. But social change tends to be difficult and messy, so this one would be no different to any of the others.
Not sure if others with more knowledge have heard this but having a coffee with a friend last night who is Chief Pharmacist for a big Health Trust, he was bemoaning the fate of High Street pharmacy. He says he expects Lloyds Pharmacy to be out of business this year and many other smaller pharmacies to follow. Apparently Lloyds shutting all their Sainsbury outlets is just the tip of the iceberg.
He is not someone normally given to doom and gloom nor much interested in discussing politics (strange fellow!) but he is very downbeat about the highstreet pharmacy sector.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
I am not clear on this.
Also which takes precedence: this judgment or the earlier Scottish case relating to women on public boards?
Thanks.
Miliband would be 29 points ahead at this point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64430624
If it requires more governmental funding (almost certain), then it's hard to think of better places to spend it.
Trans men and trans women are some of the most vulnerable people in society and it boils my piss to see them being treated as a political football. They need to be treated with respect, and allowed to live their lives. Anything we can do as a society to help that, we should, even if that includes some legislative safeguards to protect safe spaces for women which I'd support. We can't be absolutist that one person's rights trumps another person's rights.
Violence against women is also a very serious issue, and it continues to be seemingly ignored. Men are going to continue to find ways to abuse/rape/murder women if they can, but it does seem that most of the violence against women we hear about doesn't involve men dressing up as women or involve trans women. Instead its domestic abusers, mysoginistic police officers, positions of power being abused, and so on. Time to properly tackle violence against women in all its forms.
I agree with other posters too that none of this is moving the political dial, so would suggest politicians also focus on other things that matter e.g. the economy, inflation, the NHS etc.
He is not routed in factionalism and left wing purity, he is intent on winning power and making positive change.
I genuinely think he's a modern day Blair, not with the charisma but with the purpose.
But that won’t always be the case. Wokery is only getting worse and culture war issues - like migration - are only intensifying
One day soon it WILL swing a general election, in the UK and elsewhere
https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/01/29/three-wrong-takes-on-the-zahawi-affair/
The point about SLAPP tactics which make it financially impossible for journalists to investigate stories unless they have very well financed and committed backing, is perhaps the most important one.
Such abuse of the legal system by the rich will remain, long after this government is history, unless something is done about it. It needs addressing.
This has proved really inconvenient for many people, including a friend with a disabled child.
One thing I'd note: there has been some abuse of the staff from customers, which would not have helped. But I can also understand people getting annoyed at what has been really poor service, even when they're open. Lost/missed prescriptions; prescriptions not being ready on time, not answering the phone, etc. It doesn't excuse abuse, but the two factors probably feed into each other: poor service leading to a little abuse, leading to more poor service...
And our GP service is also really, really poor.
I do think all the pronoun crap is just that and I would use what I thought was the reality in front of me not some made up garbage.
Personally if the GRR Bill gets through I am planning to move to Scotland for the required period, legally become a man (I have short hair, wear trousers most of the time and my first name is also a man's name) and look forward to a big increase in what I am paid, no longer being at high risk of sexual assault, having my bullshit taken seriously, indeed reverentially, and being able to date handsome gay men I've fancied for years. Surely a column in the Guardian cannot be far behind.
Bring it on I say!
(This may not be an entirely serious suggestion but it is Sunday morning and if one cannot make mischief then, well what is the world coming to .....).
Seriously?
How should they be reformed? Do any of the lawyers here have any insight?
It sounds to me like you might have SAD. Seasonal Affective Disorder. A lot of people get it in a mild way - the British winter is dark and dour. But some people get it quite seriously - I know because I am one of them - and it can be mood crushing and lead to self destructive behaviour or deep deep glooms
I have friends who have it even worse than me
There are remedies - obviously escaping to the sun is the best, but for many that is totally not feasible, but you can still take other steps to make it more bearable
Maybe go to your GP and ask for advice. Don’t let them fob you off. SAD is a real thing
I’m far from certain that it will be.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
He’s certainly a far better Commons performer these days than is Starmer.
So rather than Miliband being the ideologue and Starmer the pragmatist, I'd say they've always in fact been soft-left kindred spirits.
There was a campaign a while back to update the libel laws as a result of what a science writer, Simon Singh, endured and it led to the 2103 Defamation Act. But it is still too heavily weighted in favour of the rich. We do not have a clear commitment to free speech, unlike in the US, and it is one reason why I believe that libel rulings by the U.K. courts are not automatically enforced in the US.
Which is a pretty big thing to do.
Milliband is ideological but he was also advised incredibly badly. He should have leant into the cool nerd vibe, that would have done him quite well.
I hope you are staying well, glad to see you posting a bit more frequently.
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Starmer in fact shares this view, of our more flawed economic model, and the Blair/Thatcher consensus doesn't really hold any longer.
Nigel Farage talking pints with Polly Toynbee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u2mOt2d-k4
We know, from nature, the binary is a very good rule of thumb, but it is a rule of thumb, and there are complexities out there in the form of intersex sexes that demonstrate a bit of flexibility is possible.
That it one day will be possible to meaningfully change biological sex in these ways I think is a given. Whether it will happen, and to what degree it might be possible are unknown. But, not to set Leon off, by the time we're making changes like that, it's the end of Homo sapiens 1.0 - assuming AI hasn't murdered us all.
Fairness in sport is a curious concept, as all top athletes are essentially freaks of nature to one degree or another. It's not the fact they train harder than any of us; they have massive inbuilt advantages. Also, access to training facilities also grants massive advantages (which is one reason why smaller but richer countries such as the UK or Australia punch above our weight in the medal tables).
And we should not forget the wrongs that were done to Caster Semenya either.
I genuinely don't know what to do, perhaps a separate category is necessary but then how can that ever be fair, you'd literally have biological men competing with biological women
There was much wailing when this happened - in the U.K. certain lawyers had made big plans for libel tourism - get a judgement in London, then use it round the world to shut people up.
So far at least we haven’t seen the kind of total domination of women’s competition by transitioned athletes that you’d expect if “women can’t win any professional sport” were the inevitable outcome of allowing transwomen who are taking hormones to compete.
Has a trans women even won an event at the elite level? I may have missed the news but I can’t recall anything like that: There was a US track athlete who won bronze a year or two ago IIRC?
This means that it is possible for a genetically biological male, with the right hormone treatment, to breastfeed a baby. A friend of mine from university did this a few years ago. Ultimately, therefore, it's conceivable that we're not a huge amount of medical advancement away from a genetic, biological male from receiving sufficient hormone treatment, and a transplant operation, and then carrying a foetus to term and giving birth. Given the advances being made towards growing people replacement kidneys in the lab from their own stem cells, and eventually you can conceive of growing a man a womb and ovaries in the lab that match their genetics.
To most intents and purposes a man receiving such treatment would have changed sex and become female, although they would be reliant on continuing hormone treatment.
This is all a long way from self-ID being used to change legal sex with no medical treatment being received, but the biology is a lot more complicated and nuanced.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64396740
See for example Braverman’s efforts on narrowing the right to protest.
If Finding Nemo was accurate Marlin would have become a female
The lack of an English word to describe what I’m experiencing - which is quite different to happiness - is telling
I wonder if the equivalent exists in any language anywhere
Contentment?
Serenity?
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
Serenity is too passive and again non-physical
If the latter were Labour leader today, he’d probably be seen very differently.
I expect Starmer to give him a big job, not least to keep the soft-left/soft-right balance of the party steady and stable, but also because he's done good things in the climate position.
As an aside, someone did ask ChatGPT to come up with some options for emotions we don’t have words for. You might try that.
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Sounds idyllic
Honestly......
And again this isn’t just me. My American friend, an academic with a book to write, says the same too. He is working BETTER out here
You cannot see a random woman in a womens' toilet and be 100% sure they are not a woman.
But some economist or other says it doesn't work that way.
I just don't see how this particular part impacts on you, can you explain?
Landlords are unlikely to be on long-term fixed interest rate mortgages, government policy has been to slowly discourage small landlords with changes such as the inability to claim interest payments against income tax, there’s evidence of sale prices having reached a peak and starting to fall this year.
All of which is leading to landlords selling up, and a suppply squeeze for rental properties leading to price increases.
I was one of those landlords, albeit not in London.