On topic, tough call. On the one hand Biden seems to be doing a good job as president, so why wouldn't he continue? On the other hand, if most people think he should quit, maybe he and the Democrat Party should take that into account.
AstraZeneca opting for Dublin for their new factory.
This Brexit jape is going awfully well.
Nothing to do with Ireland's corporation tax levels vs. UK's set to rise.
The increase in corporation tax is required to make up a shortfall in government revenues due to Brexit. It's a negative feedback loop.
There is little evidence that corporation tax rises increase corporation tax receipts, and plenty of evidence that corporation tax cuts increase corporation tax receipts.
From 2010 to 2017, as Conservatives reduced the corporation tax rate from 28% to today’s 19%, receipts doubled from £31.7bn to £62.7bn.
The corporation tax where Astra Zeneca is going is 12.5%. Ours is set to rise to 25%.
Raising it has nothing to do with balancing the books, it has to do with Sunak and Hunt being too weak to resist G7 corporation tax alignment being pushed by the US. Apparently a country the size of Ireland is better able to defend its national interest than we are.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Leon, your 'lived experience' matters. The problem is, your 'lived experience' has involved using lots and lots and lots of prostitutes, often whilst under the influence of mind-altering drugs abroad. They were women, were they not? Are you 100% sure you respected their rights at all times?
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Andrew Tate has a frightening level of influence among boys in schools. I'm naturally sceptical of things that smell a bit like moral panic, but his ideas have gained genuine currency among a decent-sized minority of boys (across all social boundaries). 'Misogynistic time bomb' is a good way of putting it.
Also seems to be hitting German car production numbers for some reason...
There is a minor difference. The UK doesn't own its bulk car production facilities. Mini. Nissan. JLR. All here at the behest of a foreign company who have all kinds of non-UK alternatives to remove production to. As Honda did. As Mini are. Germany owns its bulk car producers. So a dip in outputs of BMWs doesn't threaten the presence of BMW in Germany. Whereas the downturn DOES threaten the production of Minis and BWM engines in the UK.
You see the difference? Your chart whataboutery only highlights even more just how precarious our position is compared to theirs. This isn't about only Brexit - we've run our whole industry down for decades. But we are where we are, and what we're doing today just accelerates the risk of the remaining bits shutting down.
You think there's a real risk we could end up without a car industry and be as destitute as Australia?
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Right, we have narrowed it down.
It is so easy, so necessary in the interests of justice to those individuals, and so crucial to your case, that you now link to posts by them which are "anti trans", that as I see it the options open to you are 1. post links or 2. withdraw from the site.
So do this now.
Okay, here's a classic from Ms Free: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's."
This particular comment is incredible and I'd firmly call it anti-trans. Firstly, she claims to *always* be able to tell when a person is trans. She also pretends to speak for all women. She then compounds that by saying she would confront them and tell them to use a men's. Which is nasty enough, until you realise she has no magic abilities, and will have false positives, such as happens to the following lady and many more: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787
Ms Free is a lovely lady, and very forceful in her views - and fair enough. It's just I fear in her belief about this topic she strays over the line all too easily - as we all do at times.
And BTW, it's not up to you to order me to 'withdraw from the site'. I'm amused by the fact you think you have the ability to do so. It's also interesting that the anti-trans people accuse others of trying to stifle debate, and you say something like that!
Further evidence of your being an arse, then. I did not order you to do anything, I suggested that you had backed yourself into a corner from which your only way out is voluntary withdrawal. This is the same sort of logic fail as the one which makes you think that to be against Isla Bryson is to be "anti trans."
Since you are keen for me to show posts to back up my point (which I did above), show me one post where I have mentioned 'Isla Bryson' ? I'm pretty sure I have not.
AstraZeneca opting for Dublin for their new factory.
This Brexit jape is going awfully well.
Nothing to do with Ireland's corporation tax levels vs. UK's set to rise.
The increase in corporation tax is required to make up a shortfall in government revenues due to Brexit. It's a negative feedback loop.
There is little evidence that corporation tax rises increase corporation tax receipts, and plenty of evidence that corporation tax cuts increase corporation tax receipts.
From 2010 to 2017, as Conservatives reduced the corporation tax rate from 28% to today’s 19%, receipts doubled from £31.7bn to £62.7bn.
The corporation tax where Astra Zeneca is going is 12.5%. Ours is set to rise to 25%.
Raising it has nothing to do with balancing the books, it has to do with Sunak and Hunt being too weak to resist G7 corporation tax alignment being pushed by the US. Apparently a country the size of Ireland is better able to defend its national interest than we are.
Whatever. The UKG is facing a Brexit induced shortfall in receipts of at least £15 billion a year and the increase in corporation tax is its attempt to shore up the finances.
BTW and not going beyond the Telegraph headline: Truss is never proven to be right. Hence the shortest premiership on record.
And edit the minimum G7 corporation tax level is 15%. Clearly has nothing to do with this
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
There is a man on twitter who is claiming to be a father of kids who went to school with Brianna, who is aware of intense bullying and has been to court with the county council and local police over what he says were safeguarding concerns - he also makes it pretty clear that over a year ago he said if this behaviour wasn't dealt with he thought a child at the school would get killed.
Well, that twitter feed seems to accuse an awful lot of people of being "fucking liars" or "corrupt" from the Labour Leader of Warrington Council, to Warrington social workers, to Cheshire Police, to the Headmaster of the School, to the Labour MP for Warrington North, to the Tory MP for Warrington South, to the Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
It is an impressive case of one man versus the world.
Possibly he is a very brave man surrounded by a web of hypocrites, fools & liars ... but he comes across as a maniac.
He may be right ... but I'd want some corroboration.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
I know three kids (year 8 – peers of my oldest daughter) who are identifying as the opposite sex to their birth sex.
One (male to female) has clearly desperately wanted to be female since very very young. Has always worn dresses, given the chance. He is, however, clearly psychologically/emotionally troubled, and is quite violent. He was adopted (from exactly what birth circumstances I don’t know) by a single woman who, I think, vastly underestimated how difficult it would be to raise a potentially troubled child alone: he hasn’t had the easiest of lives. One (female to male) was a perfectly pleasant girl at primary school but a bit simple and easily led. She also matured physically very early. Horror and rejection of the womanly body by the girl who matures very young is not uncommon. One (male to female) was only unusual in being a bit of a naughty boy, though he decided (probably correctly) at an early age he was gay.
In the world of 20 years ago my guess is that only the first of these would be identifying as the opposite sex, and that even for that individual his self-perception of being in the wrong body is part of a bigger package of issues. That said, in a world of 40 years ago the third individual would be being bullied for being gay, or would be unhappily pretending not to be.
I stress that much of this is guesswork and I contribute it only for context.
Also seems to be hitting German car production numbers for some reason...
There is a minor difference. The UK doesn't own its bulk car production facilities. Mini. Nissan. JLR. All here at the behest of a foreign company who have all kinds of non-UK alternatives to remove production to. As Honda did. As Mini are. Germany owns its bulk car producers. So a dip in outputs of BMWs doesn't threaten the presence of BMW in Germany. Whereas the downturn DOES threaten the production of Minis and BWM engines in the UK.
You see the difference? Your chart whataboutery only highlights even more just how precarious our position is compared to theirs. This isn't about only Brexit - we've run our whole industry down for decades. But we are where we are, and what we're doing today just accelerates the risk of the remaining bits shutting down.
Another difference is that German car production in 2022 (not shown on William's graph) is up by 11% on 2021, while the UK car production has continued to fall.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Leon, your 'lived experience' matters. The problem is, your 'lived experience' has involved using lots and lots and lots of prostitutes, often whilst under the influence of mind-altering drugs abroad. They were women, were they not? Are you 100% sure you respected their rights at all times?
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
You have no idea how i have lived my life. I could be some mild mannered fantasist pretending to live the rambunctious high life while I’m actually I’m some stay at home sad sack beta cuck incel in the East Midlands like you. Such shameful allegations have been made of me on this here site, and recently
The rest of your comment just proves my point. You’re another breast-chopper. UGH
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Andrew Tate has a frightening level of influence among boys in schools. I'm naturally sceptical of things that smell a bit like moral panic, but his ideas have gained genuine currency among a decent-sized minority of boys (across all social boundaries). 'Misogynistic time bomb' is a good way of putting it.
It is scary. And of course long term the biggest victims will be the boys themselves, who will find themselves locked out of the happy life that comes from being in a relationship built on mutual love and respect.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
About the same number of under 40s are homeowners as in 2019 when the Tories won their biggest majority since 1987.
If they lose the next election it will be sod all to do with home ownership, it will be to do with being in power for 14 years, Truss' hopeless budget, Boris' partygate, Labour having a more centrist competent leader and falling support for the Brexit deal we have and the high inflation due to the Ukraine war lowering real wages
That's why you'll lose, yes, but homeownership among today's 30-50 year olds is why this incarnation of the Tory party is dusted and won't win again.
A few days ago I suggested that it would be the Tory party that will turn on older voters when they're in opposition out of necessity. You're going to be defending policies you hate in a few years because Kemi and the next generation aren't wedded to the old shibboleths of the triple lock and shovelling money to older voters.
Utter crap.
If that was true Labour would have won in 2019 by a landslide not the Tories given home ownership amongst under 40s was about the same as now. The median voter is now 50 not 40. Yes morally we may want to get more under 40s owning property but they don't win elections, voters aged 45 and over do!
If the Tories turned on those older voters they would go extinct and be replaced by RefUK as the main party of the right. Voters over 50 would still decide elections however
The issue is that people under 40 who own houses turn into people over 40 who own houses. If people don’t have a stake in society they are more inclined to vote for radical change.
And voting habits become ingrained by about middle age (you can see this of you track the “Blair cohort” of new voters in 1997).
So the Tories are not replenishing their voting pool
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
Think you have to be an adult for gender surgery? Not sure but I think that's the case here.
Re gay rights what you say is correct and the vast majority accept it as correct these days - but back when reforms were being enacted many people were of the view they were a threat to others. It wasn't a slam dunk whereby after a civilized debate everybody suddenly went "Ah ok, yes we see, that's all fine then". There were a lot of concerns and a lot of pushback.
It was absolutely a talking point of opposition to gay rights that permitting such rights would allow paedophiles & rapists to run rampant amongst the children of good god-fearing folk. Cultural conservatives talking about their targets in ways that imply or outright state that they are a danger to your children is as old as the hills.
Look at the way the far right demonises drag queen story hour as “sexualising children”: The conclusion they want you to draw is that drag itself is inherently sexual & deviant at all times. You can see the same thing in the description of trans people as “AGPs” by the GC crowd when they’re talking amongst themselves: the point is to make trans-ness about sex & especially deviant or dangerous sex.
The syllogy runs something like: if it’s sexual, then it’s a danger to children, if it’s a danger to children then it should be shunned by society. The goal is to associate the outsider group with deviant sexuality & a danger to society’s children in the minds of the target audience. It’s an effective technique sadly.
Also seems to be hitting German car production numbers for some reason...
There is a minor difference. The UK doesn't own its bulk car production facilities. Mini. Nissan. JLR. All here at the behest of a foreign company who have all kinds of non-UK alternatives to remove production to. As Honda did. As Mini are. Germany owns its bulk car producers. So a dip in outputs of BMWs doesn't threaten the presence of BMW in Germany. Whereas the downturn DOES threaten the production of Minis and BWM engines in the UK.
You see the difference? Your chart whataboutery only highlights even more just how precarious our position is compared to theirs. This isn't about only Brexit - we've run our whole industry down for decades. But we are where we are, and what we're doing today just accelerates the risk of the remaining bits shutting down.
Less than half of BMWs are made in Germany. They have plants in 15 countries and they definitely do move production to low cost jurisdictions when they can. The new i3 will only be made in China.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
You are saying they are "at war with their families" as if that automatically means it's fake? Again, there was a time when coming out as gay or lesbian would have "torn families apart", does that mean the teenagers who did that were lying and causing all these problems for their families.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Andrew Tate has a frightening level of influence among boys in schools. I'm naturally sceptical of things that smell a bit like moral panic, but his ideas have gained genuine currency among a decent-sized minority of boys (across all social boundaries). 'Misogynistic time bomb' is a good way of putting it.
The Andrew Tate thing is really scary. There’s a lot of boys and young men who see themselves as having few prospects, and are taken in by totally unsuitable role models such as Tate. Many of them have few other males in their lives.
A society with a bunch of angry young men, with no positive role models to guide them along the right path, is a recipe for trouble.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
I get up, come on here and find myself attacked as anti-trans. How dare you?
It is you who owes me an apology, if you had any honour, or, indeed comprehension of what I have written. The post I wrote earlier was before I'd seen this latest post of yours. You will note that I expressed my sadness at the death of the teenager, something you notably failed to do, being more interested apparently in making points against other posters.
Frankly, if standing up for women's rights or against the medical abuse of troubled children, as set out in the Interim Cass Report (and as reported in the Sunday Times yesterday) gets you this kind of unjustified abuse I can see why some women give up. This debate has exposed how much misogyny there is when women stand up for themselves.
I would only add that one of my children was one of those referred to the Tavistock. We were fortunate in being able to find far far better care than they provided which is why they are now happy. I am furious at the way medical care for the vulnerable has been skewed by those pushing a harmful ideology based on pseudo-science and those enabling it through their cowardice and lack of care. The harm that is being done to women, to children and to those who genuinely have gender dysphoria (not the men with fetishes or a desire to harm women who have sheltered under the "trans" umbrella) is appalling. It should be discussed and the political implications should be discussed on a political site.
Why are you ramping an old poll with fieldwork nearly a fortnight out of date?
6th Feb is "nearly a fortnight" ago?
1st Feb is nearly a fortnight ago.
The other thing to say is that 42% looks like the one-in-twenty outlier when compared to polls just before and just after.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
I'm a bit dim about statistical methodology, but I live in a WWC northern town. I just find it impossible to understand how online panels, surveys etc can be representative of the broad mass of the excellent, lovely people who would neither want to nor remember to do such a thing and are just too busy living lives except perhaps in the week coming up to GE day to think about it.
How is it done so as to include the indifferent, non engaged, etc? (Most people)
That's a good question. One thing they do is to look for identifiers that correlate with low engagement - so for example readers of the Sun are less engaged than readers of the Guardian - and then they will upweight the responses from Sun readers so that the weighted sample reflects the correct proportion of Sun readers.
However, there is a problem, because the Sun readers responding to polls will tend to be the more engaged Sun readers - are they representative of the less engaged Sun readers?
YouGov, for example, seem to put some effort into attracting people to respond to their surveys by asking a very wide variety of questions - favourite tea-dunking biscuit, or whether zebras have white stripes on a black background, or black stripes on a white background - to encourage participation from people who are not so interested in the minutiae of daily politics, but will take a social media quiz to find out which Hogwarts house they would be sorted into*. This might be successful in drawing in some less engaged people who mostly don't want to think about politics.
It's a big problem. Polling methodology is based on the assumption that the sample is random, but non-response rates are so high that this assumption is barely tenable, and the polling sample is largely self-selecting. I'm therefore incredibly impressed that the polls bear any relation to reality at all. They have no right to do as well as they do. Which isn't that great, obviously.
AstraZeneca opting for Dublin for their new factory.
This Brexit jape is going awfully well.
Nothing to do with Ireland's corporation tax levels vs. UK's set to rise.
The increase in corporation tax is required to make up a shortfall in government revenues due to Brexit. It's a negative feedback loop.
There is little evidence that corporation tax rises increase corporation tax receipts, and plenty of evidence that corporation tax cuts increase corporation tax receipts.
From 2010 to 2017, as Conservatives reduced the corporation tax rate from 28% to today’s 19%, receipts doubled from £31.7bn to £62.7bn.
The corporation tax where Astra Zeneca is going is 12.5%. Ours is set to rise to 25%.
Raising it has nothing to do with balancing the books, it has to do with Sunak and Hunt being too weak to resist G7 corporation tax alignment being pushed by the US. Apparently a country the size of Ireland is better able to defend its national interest than we are.
The main reason that CT as a percentage of GDP hasn't fallen over recent years is that the rate falls have been accompanied by base expansion: interest deductibility restrictions, anti-avoidance rules, closure of all the old double-dip financing structures and so on. It's been a clever sleight of hand that helped our international brand for CT while keeping the revenue base the same.
The trouble is the new rate rise isn't accompanied by base narrowing measures. Not yet anyway. It should be - targeted capex incentives, more on green investment (although that will be drowned out by the vast sums being thrown at US green investment under the IRA), potentially a deemed equity deduction to equalise with debt funding, and so on.
Ireland will of course be at 15% following BEPS pillar 2 next year, as they are bringing in a top-up tax. That would be roughly in line with the blended rate a large life sciences group would achieve in the UK under the patent box if they are performing the principal R&D activity in the UK. The UK also has more generous R&D credits than Ireland. However, Ireland is more tax efficient for generics or patented medicines where the R&D nexus is not in the UK.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
To describe a murder in general terms as either 'hate related' or 'non hate related' is a demonstration of how official and regulated forms of language have departed from common sense and reality. It is entirely without meaning.
It's clearly not 'entirely without meaning', since definitions exist for the phrase. What you mean is that you don't like them.
OK. Meaningless to those who are less expert on reading the fine detail of legislation and speak ordinary language of the sort Wittgenstein would recognise.
And, no I don't like it and there are reasons for not liking these distortions.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
You are saying they are "at war with their families" as if that automatically means it's fake? Again, there was a time when coming out as gay or lesbian would have "torn families apart", does that mean the teenagers who did that were lying and causing all these problems for their families.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Leon, your 'lived experience' matters. The problem is, your 'lived experience' has involved using lots and lots and lots of prostitutes, often whilst under the influence of mind-altering drugs abroad. They were women, were they not? Are you 100% sure you respected their rights at all times?
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
You have no idea how i have lived my life. I could be some mild mannered fantasist pretending to live the rambunctious high life while I’m actually I’m some stay at home sad sack beta cuck incel in the East Midlands like you. Such shameful allegations have been made of me on this here site, and recently
The rest of your comment just proves my point. You’re another breast-chopper. UGH
LOL. I a a happily married man, approaching fifty. I've never found the need to use prostitutes, and I believe I have always tried to treat women with respect. I don't believe I'm a 'cuck' or an 'incel'; and I'm in East Anglia, not the East Midlands.
My idea on how you live your life is from past comments. Your life is full of rich stories: but the problem with rich stories is that they can reveal a little more than you intend.
I'm also amused by your use of the word 'beta'. There's a trend by people (mostly on the right) to proclaim that sex is binary, yet they attempt to split men into non-binary (hence alphas, betas etc). Oddly enough, they always place themselves in the alphas. It's all rubbish.
"You’re another breast-chopper." Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound? Do you realise that it's also a little anti-trans (i.e. against ftom).
...I could be some mild mannered fantasist pretending to live the rambunctious high life while I’m actually I’m some stay at home sad sack beta cuck incel in the East Midlands...
And once again we drift onto the GRR and end up with entrenched absolutists screaming at each other.
Meanwhile Mr Incel Tateist considers which woman he will harass today, knowing that he will get away with it. He isn't a threat to these slags, they love being put in their place. Naah mate, look at those freaks in a dress, there's yer threat.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
You are saying they are "at war with their families" as if that automatically means it's fake? Again, there was a time when coming out as gay or lesbian would have "torn families apart", does that mean the teenagers who did that were lying and causing all these problems for their families.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
Think you have to be an adult for gender surgery? Not sure but I think that's the case here.
Re gay rights what you say is correct and the vast majority accept it as correct these days - but back when reforms were being enacted many people were of the view they were a threat to others. It wasn't a slam dunk whereby after a civilized debate everybody suddenly went "Ah ok, yes we see, that's all fine then". There were a lot of concerns and a lot of pushback.
It was absolutely a talking point of opposition to gay rights that permitting such rights would allow paedophiles & rapists to run rampant amongst the children of good god-fearing folk. Cultural conservatives talking about their targets in ways that imply or outright state that they are a danger to your children is as old as the hills.
Look at the way the far right demonises drag queen story hour as “sexualising children”: The conclusion they want you to draw is that drag itself is inherently sexual & deviant at all times. You can see the same thing in the description of trans people as “AGPs” by the GC crowd when they’re talking amongst themselves: the point is to make trans-ness about sex & especially deviant or dangerous sex.
The syllogy runs something like: if it’s sexual, then it’s a danger to children, if it’s a danger to children then it should be shunned by society. The goal is to associate the outsider group with deviant sexuality & a danger to society’s children in the minds of the target audience. It’s an effective technique sadly.
Indeed. I understand some of these Trumpite bigots are using the same technique - “it’s a threat to children!” - to attack the sexual rights of Minor Attracted Persons, AKA pedophiles
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
I get up, come on here and find myself attacked as anti-trans. How dare you?
It is you who owes me an apology, if you had any honour, or, indeed comprehension of what I have written. The post I wrote earlier was before I'd seen this latest post of yours. You will note that I expressed my sadness at the death of the teenager, something you notably failed to do, being more interested apparently in making points against other posters.
Frankly, if standing up for women's rights or against the medical abuse of troubled children, as set out in the Interim Cass Report (and as reported in the Sunday Times yesterday) gets you this kind of unjustified abuse I can see why some women give up. This debate has exposed how much misogyny there is when women stand up for themselves.
I would only add that one of my children was one of those referred to the Tavistock. We were fortunate in being able to find far far better care than they provided which is why they are now happy. I am furious at the way medical care for the vulnerable has been skewed by those pushing a harmful ideology based on pseudo-science and those enabling it through their cowardice and lack of care. The harm that is being done to women, to children and to those who genuinely have gender dysphoria (not the men with fetishes or a desire to harm women who have sheltered under the "trans" umbrella) is appalling. It should be discussed and the political implications should be discussed on a political site.
I gave an example below that I see as being utterly anti-trans (and oddly, anti-woman as well). You may not believe it is, but I think that's a very hard case to argue, even for a lawyer such as yourself.
The stupidity of all of this is that we're probably not too far apart on many things, and as ever it's the small differences that divide massively.
But yes, I class you as anti-trans. Perhaps you ought to consider why I might think that, and I don't think it's because I'm a bad person.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Leon, your 'lived experience' matters. The problem is, your 'lived experience' has involved using lots and lots and lots of prostitutes, often whilst under the influence of mind-altering drugs abroad. They were women, were they not? Are you 100% sure you respected their rights at all times?
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
You have no idea how i have lived my life. I could be some mild mannered fantasist pretending to live the rambunctious high life while I’m actually I’m some stay at home sad sack beta cuck incel in the East Midlands like you. Such shameful allegations have been made of me on this here site, and recently
The rest of your comment just proves my point. You’re another breast-chopper. UGH
LOL. I a a happily married man, approaching fifty. I've never found the need to use prostitutes, and I believe I have always tried to treat women with respect. I don't believe I'm a 'cuck' or an 'incel'; and I'm in East Anglia, not the East Midlands.
My idea on how you live your life is from past comments. Your life is full of rich stories: but the problem with rich stories is that they can reveal a little more than you intend.
I'm also amused by your use of the word 'beta'. There's a trend by people (mostly on the right) to proclaim that sex is binary, yet they attempt to split men into non-binary (hence alphas, betas etc). Oddly enough, they always place themselves in the alphas. It's all rubbish.
"You’re another breast-chopper." Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound? Do you realise that it's also a little anti-trans (i.e. against ftom).
You’re a self confessed “stay at home” house husband obsessed with tiny model trains and who literally collects sheep manure and who runs, for no reason apparent to anyone, 50 marathons a year. To be honest you’re more a kind of special gamma minus minus, but I was feeling generous
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
They’re trying to work out how to blame Sturgeon for this and deflect from their own deranged obsessing over the issue, the creaking of the cogs turning in their noggins is deafening. I’m going with Sturgeon has generated such bad publicity for trans people that she has caused this to happen.
Looking forward to some hot Rowling input.
'JK Rowling has accused Nicola Sturgeon of "riding roughshod" over women's rights and has said the First Minister will be held personally responsible if her overhaul of transgender laws leads to attacks on girls.
The Harry Potter author said that Ms Sturgeon would be to blame for cases of “voyeurism, sexual harassment, assault or rape” that she believes could result from allowing Scots to change their legal sex simply by signing a declaration.'
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
You are saying they are "at war with their families" as if that automatically means it's fake? Again, there was a time when coming out as gay or lesbian would have "torn families apart", does that mean the teenagers who did that were lying and causing all these problems for their families.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
You can always tell when Leon has lost an argument: he resorts to ad-hominem eruptions.
Come on Leon, you’re an intelligent man, or at least you do a good job of impersonating one here. At least try and acknowledge JJ’s arguments. Maybe you feel that even a 5% regret rate is too high for something as phsically invasive as breast amputation? Perhaps you think the stats are wrong? Try something: You can do it, I’m sure.
“I don’t like your argument, therefore you are a creep” is the worst argument I’ve ever seen. You can do better: I believe in you!
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
Mate I don't doubt for a second that your examples are real. And they are sad.
But that is two girls. How many girls in total in the school? Because pretty much every girl in the class. In the school. In all the schools in the borough. The city. The whiole fucking country. Are at risk of being abused and assaulted by boys and then men.
Two. Vs everyone else. Yet your focus isn't on the vast majority its on the two. Your examples are a genuine issue for those girls and their families. But not anyone else. But Andrew Tate, Incel, the whole wolf-whistling tits out culture is a genuine threat to literally everyone else.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
You are saying they are "at war with their families" as if that automatically means it's fake? Again, there was a time when coming out as gay or lesbian would have "torn families apart", does that mean the teenagers who did that were lying and causing all these problems for their families.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
You can always tell when Leon has lost an argument: he resorts to ad-hominem eruptions.
Come on Leon, you’re an intelligent man, or at least you do a good job of impersonating one here. At least try and acknowledge JJ’s arguments. Maybe you feel that even a 5% regret rate is too high for something as phsically invasive as breast amputation? Perhaps you think the stats are wrong? Try something: You can do it, I’m sure.
“I don’t like your argument, therefore you are a creep” is the worst argument I’ve ever seen. You can do better: I believe in you!
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
You are saying they are "at war with their families" as if that automatically means it's fake? Again, there was a time when coming out as gay or lesbian would have "torn families apart", does that mean the teenagers who did that were lying and causing all these problems for their families.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
You can always tell when Leon has lost an argument: he resorts to ad-hominem eruptions.
Come on Leon, you’re an intelligent man, or at least you do a good job of impersonating one here. At least try and acknowledge JJ’s arguments. Maybe you feel that even a 5% regret rate is too high for something as phsically invasive as breast amputation? Perhaps you think the stats are wrong? Try something: You can do it, I’m sure.
“I don’t like your argument, therefore you are a creep” is the worst argument I’ve ever seen. You can do better: I believe in you!
He's exhausted all his juices on inflatable UFOs, give him a break.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
To describe a murder in general terms as either 'hate related' or 'non hate related' is a demonstration of how official and regulated forms of language have departed from common sense and reality. It is entirely without meaning.
It's clearly not 'entirely without meaning', since definitions exist for the phrase. What you mean is that you don't like them.
Right. We've chosen to draw a distinction in law between crimes committed due to an animus towards an individual because of specific circumstances related only to that individual, and those committed against a person because they share attributes with other members of a group, and to regard the latter as worse.
So, killing a rich individual because they're related to you and you stand to inherit lots of money is one thing, but killing people at random solely because they are rich, and for whom you have no reason to kill that individual rich person rather than another, is something that we've decided is worse.
Why might this be? Well, a rich person can be expected to know who would benefit financially from their death, and so act with appropriate wariness around those individuals, but how are they to know who to protect themselves from if someone is killing rich people indiscriminately?
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
Mate I don't doubt for a second that your examples are real. And they are sad.
But that is two girls. How many girls in total in the school? Because pretty much every girl in the class. In the school. In all the schools in the borough. The city. The whiole fucking country. Are at risk of being abused and assaulted by boys and then men.
Two. Vs everyone else. Yet your focus isn't on the vast majority its on the two. Your examples are a genuine issue for those girls and their families. But not anyone else. But Andrew Tate, Incel, the whole wolf-whistling tits out culture is a genuine threat to literally everyone else.
I know which is the real threat.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
I see all the "pro-trans" posters who confidently assured us all that Scotland's proposed self-ID legislation couldn't possibly be abused by non-trans opportunists, have shrugged off their defeat and are continuing to be confidently wrong about the wider issue in new and interesting ways.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
You are saying they are "at war with their families" as if that automatically means it's fake? Again, there was a time when coming out as gay or lesbian would have "torn families apart", does that mean the teenagers who did that were lying and causing all these problems for their families.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
You can always tell when Leon has lost an argument: he resorts to ad-hominem eruptions.
Come on Leon, you’re an intelligent man, or at least you do a good job of impersonating one here. At least try and acknowledge JJ’s arguments. Maybe you feel that even a 5% regret rate is too high for something as phsically invasive as breast amputation? Perhaps you think the stats are wrong? Try something: You can do it, I’m sure.
“I don’t like your argument, therefore you are a creep” is the worst argument I’ve ever seen. You can do better: I believe in you!
Fuck off
It wasn't my fault, sir! PLEASE don't deactivate me! I told Leon not to spout off on PB, but he's faulty, malfunctioning!
I see all the "pro-trans" posters who confidently assured us all that Scotland's proposed self-ID legislation couldn't possibly be abused by non-trans opportunists, have shrugged off their defeat and are continuing to be confidently wrong about the wider issue in new and interesting ways.
I never supported the GRR bill and never said it wouldn't be abused. Wrong again.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Leon, your 'lived experience' matters. The problem is, your 'lived experience' has involved using lots and lots and lots of prostitutes, often whilst under the influence of mind-altering drugs abroad. They were women, were they not? Are you 100% sure you respected their rights at all times?
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
You have no idea how i have lived my life. I could be some mild mannered fantasist pretending to live the rambunctious high life while I’m actually I’m some stay at home sad sack beta cuck incel in the East Midlands like you. Such shameful allegations have been made of me on this here site, and recently
The rest of your comment just proves my point. You’re another breast-chopper. UGH
I see all the "pro-trans" posters who confidently assured us all that Scotland's proposed self-ID legislation couldn't possibly be abused by non-trans opportunists, have shrugged off their defeat and are continuing to be confidently wrong about the wider issue in new and interesting ways.
I never supported the GRR bill and never said it wouldn't be abused. Wrong again.
Indeed, & if you go back through PB I made a point of telling CycleFree that I thought she (& others) were right about this specific issue.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Leon, your 'lived experience' matters. The problem is, your 'lived experience' has involved using lots and lots and lots of prostitutes, often whilst under the influence of mind-altering drugs abroad. They were women, were they not? Are you 100% sure you respected their rights at all times?
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
You have no idea how i have lived my life. I could be some mild mannered fantasist pretending to live the rambunctious high life while I’m actually I’m some stay at home sad sack beta cuck incel in the East Midlands like you. Such shameful allegations have been made of me on this here site, and recently
The rest of your comment just proves my point. You’re another breast-chopper. UGH
I'm in East Anglia, not the East Midlands.
Not sure if that helps your case, tbh.
Yes, The phrase “I’m obviously an alpha male, I live in Lowestoft” does not trip convincingly off the tongue
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
And I've pointed out to you what those sections say: and (from memory) I cannot see how living as a woman involves going into men's toilets. But I don't have time to go into it at the moment (it's half term, and I've got to practice being a Hyena).
As for your last paragraph: have you considered the effect this would have on trans people?
Living as a woman does not require going into a man's loo. There are gender neutral loos or ones which are locked bathrooms as in CostaCoffee.
But the law states that it is lawful to exclude men - even those who fall within the definition of gender reassignment - from women's loos. That is for a very good reason because you cannot tell the difference between a man who is no risk and a man who is. That is why you keep all men out. There is also the privacy and dignity aspect, which are also important, and keep getting overlooked.
Saying that I would challenge someone who is a man in a woman's space is not being anti-trans. It is essential to keep me safe. I am not going to prejudice my safety and expecting me to do so in order not to hurt an man's feelings is misogyny of the purest kind.
A lesbian friend of mine who looks very butch was recently challenged in a loo (from behind) and when the woman apologised when she realised she had got it wrong my friend said there was no reason to apologise because it was exactly the right thing to do.
I have been one of the few posters on here who has repeatedly, both below and above the line, written about violence against women and child abuse (and our failure to deal with it) and medical scandals involving women and children. I have written about the political implications of how the GRR Bill was being brought through Holyrood and the Haldane judgment and the issue of sex offenders being able to obtain recognition as a woman, both of which then turned out to be big political stories. And about misogyny in the Labour Party - a theme picked up by a Guardian commentator a few days later.
That is what this forum should be for. But if it is going to descend into unwarranted personal attacks, then I am sorry but it is no longer for me.
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Tedious. This Fear Of The Other stuff is something you have read online and thought sounded cool.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
To describe a murder in general terms as either 'hate related' or 'non hate related' is a demonstration of how official and regulated forms of language have departed from common sense and reality. It is entirely without meaning.
We know its meaning though. It's about whether or not the target of a crime was selected because of possessing a characteristic such as being gay or black rather than at random or for other more usual reasons such as money or jealousy or revenge.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Andrew Tate has a frightening level of influence among boys in schools. I'm naturally sceptical of things that smell a bit like moral panic, but his ideas have gained genuine currency among a decent-sized minority of boys (across all social boundaries). 'Misogynistic time bomb' is a good way of putting it.
It is scary. And of course long term the biggest victims will be the boys themselves, who will find themselves locked out of the happy life that comes from being in a relationship built on mutual love and respect.
Its been brewing for a while. When I was in college we had "lad culture". Shitbox magazines like Loaded. Men Behaving Badly. Albeit countered by the whole "girl power" thing which pushed against it.
The incel thing is baffling. I loved Tom Cruise hamming it up in Magnolia as the male guru selling nonsense "Respect the Cock" lifestyle advice to inadequate men. But people like Andrew Tate have taken it to heart and social media allows rapid grooming of boys into hyper-"masculine" aggressive young idiots.
This is what really annoys me about the trans distraction. We are breeding an increasingly angry generation of young men who thing women are chattel. With the corresponding growth in abuse and attacks and worse. And yet we shouldn't be going after this real world threat to anyone with a vagina, because the real societal threat are the 0.2% edge case examples. We can't allow trans women because they might assault women. As if men aren't already doing that. hell, its the real world fear of being attacked by men which drives the understandable concerns of women about penis-equipped people being allowed near them.
So do we go after the cause - men attacking women - or the side-effect?
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Tedious. This Fear Of The Other stuff is something you have read online and thought sounded cool.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
Do you think it's acceptable that trans people have to wait years for procedures so they can live as they want to?
I would not call that an "edge case", it is the experience of mostly anyone wanting to transition.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
To describe a murder in general terms as either 'hate related' or 'non hate related' is a demonstration of how official and regulated forms of language have departed from common sense and reality. It is entirely without meaning.
We know its meaning though. It's about whether or not the target of a crime was selected because of possessing a characteristic such as being gay or black rather than at random or for other more usual reasons such as money or jealousy or revenge.
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to SUFFERING!"
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Leon, your 'lived experience' matters. The problem is, your 'lived experience' has involved using lots and lots and lots of prostitutes, often whilst under the influence of mind-altering drugs abroad. They were women, were they not? Are you 100% sure you respected their rights at all times?
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
You have no idea how i have lived my life. I could be some mild mannered fantasist pretending to live the rambunctious high life while I’m actually I’m some stay at home sad sack beta cuck incel in the East Midlands like you. Such shameful allegations have been made of me on this here site, and recently
The rest of your comment just proves my point. You’re another breast-chopper. UGH
LOL. I a a happily married man, approaching fifty. I've never found the need to use prostitutes, and I believe I have always tried to treat women with respect. I don't believe I'm a 'cuck' or an 'incel'; and I'm in East Anglia, not the East Midlands.
My idea on how you live your life is from past comments. Your life is full of rich stories: but the problem with rich stories is that they can reveal a little more than you intend.
I'm also amused by your use of the word 'beta'. There's a trend by people (mostly on the right) to proclaim that sex is binary, yet they attempt to split men into non-binary (hence alphas, betas etc). Oddly enough, they always place themselves in the alphas. It's all rubbish.
"You’re another breast-chopper." Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound? Do you realise that it's also a little anti-trans (i.e. against ftom).
You’re a self confessed “stay at home” house husband obsessed with tiny model trains and who literally collects sheep manure and who runs, for no reason apparent to anyone, 50 marathons a year. To be honest you’re more a kind of special gamma minus minus, but I was feeling generous
Yep, I'm a stay-at-home dad. And you know what? It gives me a little insight into the role women are traditionally supposed to fulfil in life, and the way we should no longer try to pigeonhole people into roles because of sex, gender or anything else.
I don't see being a "stay at home” house husband as being a bad thing. Do you?
"obsessed with tiny model trains " Nope. I have many minor obsessions, but I think they're all of the generally positive "Yay! Isn't this cool!" type.
"collects sheep manure"
I literally have no idea where this has come from.
"for no reason apparent to anyone, 50 marathons a year."
I'm *hoping* to do 52. I'm at six at the moment, so I'm one behind schedule (because of ice and frost). And I've got no idea why I'm doing it, aside from the challenge. The same reason I spent a year walking the coast 20 years ago. I probably won't succeed in this challenge as it's proving harder than I expected, but I'm a little proud of what I've done so far.
But the thing you didn't mention is that I'm a dad. A full-time dad. As I see it that is my role, and I love it. (We're currently learning some lines from the Lion King for a play.)
If that makes me a "gamma minus minus" in your eyes, then the problem is your vision, not me.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
Mate I don't doubt for a second that your examples are real. And they are sad.
But that is two girls. How many girls in total in the school? Because pretty much every girl in the class. In the school. In all the schools in the borough. The city. The whiole fucking country. Are at risk of being abused and assaulted by boys and then men.
Two. Vs everyone else. Yet your focus isn't on the vast majority its on the two. Your examples are a genuine issue for those girls and their families. But not anyone else. But Andrew Tate, Incel, the whole wolf-whistling tits out culture is a genuine threat to literally everyone else.
I know which is the real threat.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Are we dealing with the other problem in any way? The reality is we aren't dealing with ANY problem.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
It was announced recently at my son's school that a Y4 (i.e. 8 or 9 years old) pupil, born a boy, wanted to use a girls name and wear the girls uniform. Instances like this across the country now. It was practically unheard of 10 years ago.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
And I've pointed out to you what those sections say: and (from memory) I cannot see how living as a woman involves going into men's toilets. But I don't have time to go into it at the moment (it's half term, and I've got to practice being a Hyena).
As for your last paragraph: have you considered the effect this would have on trans people?
Living as a woman does not require going into a man's loo. There are gender neutral loos or ones which are locked bathrooms as in CostaCoffee.
But the law states that it is lawful to exclude men - even those who fall within the definition of gender reassignment - from women's loos. That is for a very good reason because you cannot tell the difference between a man who is no risk and a man who is. That is why you keep all men out. There is also the privacy and dignity aspect, which are also important, and keep getting overlooked.
Saying that I would challenge someone who is a man in a woman's space is not being anti-trans. It is essential to keep me safe. I am not going to prejudice my safety and expecting me to do so in order not to hurt an man's feelings is misogyny of the purest kind.
A lesbian friend of mine who looks very butch was recently challenged in a loo (from behind) and when the woman apologised when she realised she had got it wrong my friend said there was no reason to apologise because it was exactly the right thing to do.
I have been one of the few posters on here who has repeatedly, both below and above the line, written about violence against women and child abuse (and our failure to deal with it) and medical scandals involving women and children. I have written about the political implications of how the GRR Bill was being brought through Holyrood and the Haldane judgment and the issue of sex offenders being able to obtain recognition as a woman, both of which then turned out to be big political stories. And about misogyny in the Labour Party - a theme picked up by a Guardian commentator a few days later.
That is what this forum should be for. But if it is going to descend into unwarranted personal attacks, then I am sorry but it is no longer for me.
I hope it does not descend into that. Leon seems to be revelling in both issuing them and others joining in. Perhaps his next regeneration is overdue. And others need to calm down.
@JosiasJessop it is pointless you continuing to converse with that poster. Everyone here knows you’re a decent chap and we all enjoy your posts, me particularly.
You’ll only wear yourself down and make yourself annoyed. Trust me, been there and warn the T-shirt.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
It was announced recently at my son's school that a Y4 (i.e. 8 or 9 years old) pupil , born a boy, it was announced recently that they wanted to use a girls name and wear the girls uniform. Instances like this across the country now. It was practically unheard of 10 years ago.
I don't know how many other PBers were complete twats in their teens. I was. It seems to me that this in a non zero number of cases is what you do to wind up your parents after going vegan and buying the drum kit have failed.
Will an hour ever go again on PB by before The Artist Formerly Known As Byronic, ‘Josias Jessop’ - the marathon man on the internet, Trans-for-tea-Cyclefree and Carlotta the Spotter decline to talk about this endlessly boring subject?
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Tedious. This Fear Of The Other stuff is something you have read online and thought sounded cool.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
Do you think it's acceptable that trans people have to wait years for procedures so they can live as they want to?
I would not call that an "edge case", it is the experience of mostly anyone wanting to transition.
Do you think it's acceptable that people with arthritic hips have to wait years for procedures so they can live as they want to?
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
And I've pointed out to you what those sections say: and (from memory) I cannot see how living as a woman involves going into men's toilets. But I don't have time to go into it at the moment (it's half term, and I've got to practice being a Hyena).
As for your last paragraph: have you considered the effect this would have on trans people?
Living as a woman does not require going into a man's loo. There are gender neutral loos or ones which are locked bathrooms as in CostaCoffee.
But the law states that it is lawful to exclude men - even those who fall within the definition of gender reassignment - from women's loos. That is for a very good reason because you cannot tell the difference between a man who is no risk and a man who is. That is why you keep all men out. There is also the privacy and dignity aspect, which are also important, and keep getting overlooked.
Saying that I would challenge someone who is a man in a woman's space is not being anti-trans. It is essential to keep me safe. I am not going to prejudice my safety and expecting me to do so in order not to hurt an man's feelings is misogyny of the purest kind.
A lesbian friend of mine who looks very butch was recently challenged in a loo (from behind) and when the woman apologised when she realised she had got it wrong my friend said there was no reason to apologise because it was exactly the right thing to do.
I have been one of the few posters on here who has repeatedly, both below and above the line, written about violence against women and child abuse (and our failure to deal with it) and medical scandals involving women and children. I have written about the political implications of how the GRR Bill was being brought through Holyrood and the Haldane judgment and the issue of sex offenders being able to obtain recognition as a woman, both of which then turned out to be big political stories. And about misogyny in the Labour Party - a theme picked up by a Guardian commentator a few days later.
That is what this forum should be for. But if it is going to descend into unwarranted personal attacks, then I am sorry but it is no longer for me.
"Living as a woman does not require going into a man's loo. There are gender neutral loos or ones which are locked bathrooms as in CostaCoffee."
Have you realised how few gender-neutral loos there are? I see the right to have a pee as being fairly fundamental (and we could go into how the number of public toilets has reduced massively over the years). And I don't think it's safe to transwomen to always go into male loos.
Are you ashamed of your friend challenging a lesbian in a loo? Do you think that's good behaviour in a civilised society? Because I really hope you are ashamed of it. I also wonder if your lesbian friend will feel the same way when it happens three times a week.
I have also written many comments about the prevalence of violence in our society: not just against women and girls, but everyone. There is far too much violence. There're have been some interesting comments below re. the Tate situation.
I see all the "pro-trans" posters who confidently assured us all that Scotland's proposed self-ID legislation couldn't possibly be abused by non-trans opportunists, have shrugged off their defeat and are continuing to be confidently wrong about the wider issue in new and interesting ways.
I never supported the GRR bill and never said it wouldn't be abused. Wrong again.
Indeed, & if you go back through PB I made a point of telling CycleFree that I thought she (& others) were right about this specific issue.
Some oddly guilty consciences there. I know who I meant, and it didn't include either of you.
But anyway, it doesn't matter. Either identity trumps biology, or it doesn't. We've just had a comprehensive public demonstration of why it shouldn't. Continuing to argue the point in the other direction is somewhere between absurd, and recklessly dangerous.
Will an hour ever go again on PB by before The Artist Formerly Known As Byronic, ‘Josias Jessop’ - the marathon man on the internet, Trans-for-tea-Cyclefree and Carlotta the Spotter decline to talk about this endlessly boring subject?
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Tedious. This Fear Of The Other stuff is something you have read online and thought sounded cool.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
Do you think it's acceptable that trans people have to wait years for procedures so they can live as they want to?
I would not call that an "edge case", it is the experience of mostly anyone wanting to transition.
Do you think it's acceptable that people with arthritic hips have to wait years for procedures so they can live as they want to?
Twit.
You’re clearly very angry. Wishing you the best going forward.
It is not impossible to both protect women's interests and prevent the targeting of trans folk. Sadly too many want to use this for their politicial ambitions. That requires the situation to worsen rather than to be addressed in a helpful manner. That's true of some on the left and some on the right. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Too many, here as elsewhere. choose to be part of the problem.
Will an hour ever go again on PB by before The Artist Formerly Known As Byronic, ‘Josias Jessop’ - the marathon man on the internet, Trans-for-tea-Cyclefree and Carlotta the Spotter decline to talk about this endlessly boring subject?
FFS give it an effing rest.
And, as far as I am aware, not one single trans person in the debate. Armchair experts all round!!!!
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
There is a man on twitter who is claiming to be a father of kids who went to school with Brianna, who is aware of intense bullying and has been to court with the county council and local police over what he says were safeguarding concerns - he also makes it pretty clear that over a year ago he said if this behaviour wasn't dealt with he thought a child at the school would get killed.
He seems to have been principally unhappy about his daughters being sent home from school for supposedly having Covid symptoms during the pandemic, and then presumably for his complaint on that matter not being dealt with to his satisfaction.
I would be wary of taking his account uncritically.
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Tedious. This Fear Of The Other stuff is something you have read online and thought sounded cool.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
Do you think it's acceptable that trans people have to wait years for procedures so they can live as they want to?
I would not call that an "edge case", it is the experience of mostly anyone wanting to transition.
Do you think it's acceptable that people with arthritic hips have to wait years for procedures so they can live as they want to?
Twit.
You’re clearly very angry. Wishing you the best going forward.
Yes I am. Stupidity always annoys the fuck out of me, as do teenage arsehats suggesting that I am opposed to gay, or indeed trans, rights.
I see @leon 's demonstrating his intellectual superiority with some absolutely killer put-downs this morning. ("I forgot how creepy you are", "Fuck off"). I wonder how we manage to breath in the rarefied intellectual atmosphere he brings to the site.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
Mate I don't doubt for a second that your examples are real. And they are sad.
But that is two girls. How many girls in total in the school? Because pretty much every girl in the class. In the school. In all the schools in the borough. The city. The whiole fucking country. Are at risk of being abused and assaulted by boys and then men.
Two. Vs everyone else. Yet your focus isn't on the vast majority its on the two. Your examples are a genuine issue for those girls and their families. But not anyone else. But Andrew Tate, Incel, the whole wolf-whistling tits out culture is a genuine threat to literally everyone else.
I know which is the real threat.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Are we dealing with the other problem in any way? The reality is we aren't dealing with ANY problem.
And we never will as long as "we're wasting time with X because Y is a bigger problem" is seen as a valid form of argument.
It is not impossible to both protect women's interests and prevent the targeting of trans folk. Sadly too many want to use this for their politicial ambitions. That requires the situation to worsen rather than to be addressed in a helpful manner. That's true of some on the left and some on the right. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Too many, here as elsewhere. choose to be part of the problem.
How much of the noise is generated because its a way to go after Sturgeon? Its like the huge effort expended in the right wing media to undermine EVs / Tesla / Environmentalism. Its societal change, the established money doesn't want change as that threatens the status quo which they do very well off thankyou. So much foaming and heat generated to attack. Better that we stay as we are, or better still revert to that rose-tinted memory of a past that didn't exist.
AstraZeneca opting for Dublin for their new factory.
This Brexit jape is going awfully well.
Nothing to do with Ireland's corporation tax levels vs. UK's set to rise.
The increase in corporation tax is required to make up a shortfall in government revenues due to Brexit. It's a negative feedback loop.
There is little evidence that corporation tax rises increase corporation tax receipts, and plenty of evidence that corporation tax cuts increase corporation tax receipts.
From 2010 to 2017, as Conservatives reduced the corporation tax rate from 28% to today’s 19%, receipts doubled from £31.7bn to £62.7bn.
The corporation tax where Astra Zeneca is going is 12.5%. Ours is set to rise to 25%.
Raising it has nothing to do with balancing the books, it has to do with Sunak and Hunt being too weak to resist G7 corporation tax alignment being pushed by the US. Apparently a country the size of Ireland is better able to defend its national interest than we are.
The main reason that CT as a percentage of GDP hasn't fallen over recent years is that the rate falls have been accompanied by base expansion: interest deductibility restrictions, anti-avoidance rules, closure of all the old double-dip financing structures and so on. It's been a clever sleight of hand that helped our international brand for CT while keeping the revenue base the same.
The trouble is the new rate rise isn't accompanied by base narrowing measures. Not yet anyway. It should be - targeted capex incentives, more on green investment (although that will be drowned out by the vast sums being thrown at US green investment under the IRA), potentially a deemed equity deduction to equalise with debt funding, and so on.
Ireland will of course be at 15% following BEPS pillar 2 next year, as they are bringing in a top-up tax. That would be roughly in line with the blended rate a large life sciences group would achieve in the UK under the patent box if they are performing the principal R&D activity in the UK. The UK also has more generous R&D credits than Ireland. However, Ireland is more tax efficient for generics or patented medicines where the R&D nexus is not in the UK.
That's fair comment, and I'd have hoped the UK Govt could have come up with a package to keep AZ investing here since we now have the freedom. Ireland have been targeting medical products / pharma as a development area since heaven knows when - the 1960s?
And they now export double the amount of Pharma we do, with an economy 1/6 of our size.
But this UK Govt don't do long term industrial strategy further ahead than the end of their nose afaics.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
It was announced recently at my son's school that a Y4 (i.e. 8 or 9 years old) pupil, born a boy, wanted to use a girls name and wear the girls uniform. Instances like this across the country now. It was practically unheard of 10 years ago.
There are several options. Here are two (they are not mutually exclusive, ):
1) It is some form of weird fad going on, where kids who are confused about life (and who wasn't when growing up) are fallaciously fixating on trans as being a 'solution' to their confusion.
2) There have always been many more trans people, but it was very, very hard to get either understanding or help, or be open about how they feel, and that's changing.
(Actually, there's a third if I put my tinfoil hat on: drugs in water...)
I'd argue more for #2 than #1. Certainly, there seems to be many more openly gay men and women over the last twenty and thirty years, as laws and social acceptance have made it okay to, in the words of the Tom Robinson Band: "Sing if you're glad to be gay". Might it be that it's now easier for people to say: "Yes, I think I'm trans", and parents are more likely to be understanding of that position ?
Will an hour ever go again on PB by before The Artist Formerly Known As Byronic, ‘Josias Jessop’ - the marathon man on the internet, Trans-for-tea-Cyclefree and Carlotta the Spotter decline to talk about this endlessly boring subject?
FFS give it an effing rest.
And, as far as I am aware, not one single trans person in the debate. Armchair experts all round!!!!
Time for another prolonged break methinks.
Tbf some of them have been in their armchairs so long that their genitals have withered entire away, so well on the way to being non binary at least.
Surely there must be a space between years of medical and legal hoop-jumping and anyone being able to identify as anything anytime. Those two things seem quite distinct to me, suggesting that there should be room for a compromise.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
And I've pointed out to you what those sections say: and (from memory) I cannot see how living as a woman involves going into men's toilets. But I don't have time to go into it at the moment (it's half term, and I've got to practice being a Hyena).
As for your last paragraph: have you considered the effect this would have on trans people?
Living as a woman does not require going into a man's loo. There are gender neutral loos or ones which are locked bathrooms as in CostaCoffee.
But the law states that it is lawful to exclude men - even those who fall within the definition of gender reassignment - from women's loos. That is for a very good reason because you cannot tell the difference between a man who is no risk and a man who is. That is why you keep all men out. There is also the privacy and dignity aspect, which are also important, and keep getting overlooked.
Saying that I would challenge someone who is a man in a woman's space is not being anti-trans. It is essential to keep me safe. I am not going to prejudice my safety and expecting me to do so in order not to hurt an man's feelings is misogyny of the purest kind.
A lesbian friend of mine who looks very butch was recently challenged in a loo (from behind) and when the woman apologised when she realised she had got it wrong my friend said there was no reason to apologise because it was exactly the right thing to do.
I have been one of the few posters on here who has repeatedly, both below and above the line, written about violence against women and child abuse (and our failure to deal with it) and medical scandals involving women and children. I have written about the political implications of how the GRR Bill was being brought through Holyrood and the Haldane judgment and the issue of sex offenders being able to obtain recognition as a woman, both of which then turned out to be big political stories. And about misogyny in the Labour Party - a theme picked up by a Guardian commentator a few days later.
That is what this forum should be for. But if it is going to descend into unwarranted personal attacks, then I am sorry but it is no longer for me.
Fwiw, Cyclefree I think you are well intentioned & erudite. But I also think you choose not to place any weight whatsoever on the impact what you want would have on trans people.
You seek to exclude transwomen from all female spaces, because you see them as a stalking horse for predatory individuals seeking access to women’s bodies. By doing so, you perpetuate the idea that transness is in & of itself associated with deviant sexuality.
You are free to believe these things of course & to campaign on that basis, but when people call that transphobic, well you may not like the term, but it’s not entirely wrong is it? It’s an explicitly anti-trans position: it depicts transwomen as a threat, an outside group to be excluded, kept away & put in a box marked “for adults only”, no children allowed.
I also think you minimise the effect this is having on other women, because you don’t want to admit that these downsides to your views are real. Your friend might have been OK with being challenged, but many women are not. I have read many stories of non-traditionally gender presenting women finding themselves being challenged in women’s toilets in recent years when it had never happened to them before. The end state of the kind of gender ideology you espouse is the kind of policing of women’s gender roles that I don’t think either of us desires.
Personally, it was this line of thought that led me away from GC views about this topic: at one time I had dived quite deep into the arguments & found those women who talked as you do quite convincing, but ultimately I couldn’t get away from the fact that to have the world you & people like you seemed to want would require policing away all the edge cases in order to ensure that no trans person ever crossed your strictly enforced gender line. Policing how women chose to present & dress themselves seemed to me to be a very high price to pay & ultimately it led to my unpicking everything. Where did intersex people fit into this heavily gendered world of yours? Stone butch lesbians? I wanted a world where people were free to present however they wished & you & people like you seemed to want to stop them, all to keep out a tiny proportion of the population because you were afraid they would provide cover for predatory men who were going to do what they were going to do anyway & no laws about access to women’s toilets were going to stop them.
The whole obsession with trans people just ended up seeming like a distraction from the real issue of male violence against women to me, as RochdalePioneers so eloquently points out, & one with greater costs to women than the GC crowd ever seems to want to admit, at least in public.
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Tedious. This Fear Of The Other stuff is something you have read online and thought sounded cool.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
The main reason I steer clear of this debate most of the time is precisely that people on both sides grab hold of the edge cases and run with them. They either obsess about those edge cases to the exclusion of everything else, or they obsess about the people obsessing about those edge cases.
It's even odder when they obsess about things happening in the USA that don't work in the same way in the UK.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
I believe the police said they don’t know whether her transgender status was the motivating reason for the attack. It may be, but until we know we shouldn’t make sweeping assumptions
The difference in approach between some and others is clear.
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Tedious. This Fear Of The Other stuff is something you have read online and thought sounded cool.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
The main reason I steer clear of this debate most of the time is precisely that people on both sides grab hold of the edge cases and run with them. They either obsess about those edge cases to the exclusion of everything else, or they obsess about the people obsessing about those edge cases.
It's even odder when they obsess about things happening in the USA that don't work in the same way in the UK.
But it isn't about latching on to the edge cases as a disguised way of fighting a war about the middle ground. Neither I nor - I would bet - CF or CV wants anything for the trans except kindness, consideration and freedom from prejudice. That is not enough for the likes of JJ who wants women endangered and children experimented on to reinforce his sense of his own right-onness. After the Tavistock book and dear old Isla, he is now well in to Iraqi info minister territory, digging vigorously away.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
And I've pointed out to you what those sections say: and (from memory) I cannot see how living as a woman involves going into men's toilets. But I don't have time to go into it at the moment (it's half term, and I've got to practice being a Hyena).
As for your last paragraph: have you considered the effect this would have on trans people?
Living as a woman does not require going into a man's loo. There are gender neutral loos or ones which are locked bathrooms as in CostaCoffee.
But the law states that it is lawful to exclude men - even those who fall within the definition of gender reassignment - from women's loos. That is for a very good reason because you cannot tell the difference between a man who is no risk and a man who is. That is why you keep all men out. There is also the privacy and dignity aspect, which are also important, and keep getting overlooked.
Saying that I would challenge someone who is a man in a woman's space is not being anti-trans. It is essential to keep me safe. I am not going to prejudice my safety and expecting me to do so in order not to hurt an man's feelings is misogyny of the purest kind.
A lesbian friend of mine who looks very butch was recently challenged in a loo (from behind) and when the woman apologised when she realised she had got it wrong my friend said there was no reason to apologise because it was exactly the right thing to do.
I have been one of the few posters on here who has repeatedly, both below and above the line, written about violence against women and child abuse (and our failure to deal with it) and medical scandals involving women and children. I have written about the political implications of how the GRR Bill was being brought through Holyrood and the Haldane judgment and the issue of sex offenders being able to obtain recognition as a woman, both of which then turned out to be big political stories. And about misogyny in the Labour Party - a theme picked up by a Guardian commentator a few days later.
That is what this forum should be for. But if it is going to descend into unwarranted personal attacks, then I am sorry but it is no longer for me.
"Living as a woman does not require going into a man's loo. There are gender neutral loos or ones which are locked bathrooms as in CostaCoffee."
Have you realised how few gender-neutral loos there are? I see the right to have a pee as being fairly fundamental (and we could go into how the number of public toilets has reduced massively over the years). And I don't think it's safe to transwomen to always go into male loos.
Are you ashamed of your friend challenging a lesbian in a loo? Do you think that's good behaviour in a civilised society? Because I really hope you are ashamed of it. I also wonder if your lesbian friend will feel the same way when it happens three times a week.
I have also written many comments about the prevalence of violence in our society: not just against women and girls, but everyone. There is far too much violence. There're have been some interesting comments below re. the Tate situation.
Just to follow up my own post, apols to Ms Free for part of the above: I now realise that her friend was the target of the abuse, not the giver. But IMV the behaviour of the abuser is terrible.
I see @leon 's demonstrating his intellectual superiority with some absolutely killer put-downs this morning. ("I forgot how creepy you are", "Fuck off"). I wonder how we manage to breath in the rarefied intellectual atmosphere he brings to the site.
It's why there are so many misspellings in my comments. The digital equivalent of stammering in the intimidating aura of His presence.
It is not impossible to both protect women's interests and prevent the targeting of trans folk. Sadly too many want to use this for their politicial ambitions. That requires the situation to worsen rather than to be addressed in a helpful manner. That's true of some on the left and some on the right. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Too many, here as elsewhere. choose to be part of the problem.
How much of the noise is generated because its a way to go after Sturgeon? Its like the huge effort expended in the right wing media to undermine EVs / Tesla / Environmentalism. Its societal change, the established money doesn't want change as that threatens the status quo which they do very well off thankyou. So much foaming and heat generated to attack. Better that we stay as we are, or better still revert to that rose-tinted memory of a past that didn't exist.
Nail on head.
There's a genuine, genuinely difficult problem at the heart of this- how should society balance the self understandings of trans and cis people? There's no easy win-win answer to that one. Then there are the myriad practical questions to work through.
But on top of that, there's a lot of noise. Some from people whose job is to do down Sturgeon. Some from professional Sturgeon fans. Some from the standard rentagobs.
Answering the first set of questions- even if the answer is "we need to slow down, stop or reverse" is hard enough. The tragedy is that the noise makes it so much harder.
No, I meant necrophilia. Keeps me up at night, worrying
It’s probably a bad thing. But what if the corpse consents. What if someone gives written consent for their corpse to be defiled after death by person x? Let’s calls him Josias Dickson
If Josias then goes and fucks the corpse is that ok? Who is it harming?
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
I get up, come on here and find myself attacked as anti-trans. How dare you?
It is you who owes me an apology, if you had any honour, or, indeed comprehension of what I have written. The post I wrote earlier was before I'd seen this latest post of yours. You will note that I expressed my sadness at the death of the teenager, something you notably failed to do, being more interested apparently in making points against other posters.
Frankly, if standing up for women's rights or against the medical abuse of troubled children, as set out in the Interim Cass Report (and as reported in the Sunday Times yesterday) gets you this kind of unjustified abuse I can see why some women give up. This debate has exposed how much misogyny there is when women stand up for themselves.
I would only add that one of my children was one of those referred to the Tavistock. We were fortunate in being able to find far far better care than they provided which is why they are now happy. I am furious at the way medical care for the vulnerable has been skewed by those pushing a harmful ideology based on pseudo-science and those enabling it through their cowardice and lack of care. The harm that is being done to women, to children and to those who genuinely have gender dysphoria (not the men with fetishes or a desire to harm women who have sheltered under the "trans" umbrella) is appalling. It should be discussed and the political implications should be discussed on a political site.
The Tavistock does seem to be staffed by snake-oil salesmen. Their treatment of teenagers does seem to be an emerging medical scandal.
I've had a flat in Soho since 1985 yet i"ve probably met less than ten genuine trans people in my life. The three or four I've worked with were all fine. One was a reasonably successful model. I can only see this as a few rather timid old folk who have been caught short by this strange new world they find themselves in.
AstraZeneca opting for Dublin for their new factory.
This Brexit jape is going awfully well.
Nothing to do with Ireland's corporation tax levels vs. UK's set to rise.
The increase in corporation tax is required to make up a shortfall in government revenues due to Brexit. It's a negative feedback loop.
There is little evidence that corporation tax rises increase corporation tax receipts, and plenty of evidence that corporation tax cuts increase corporation tax receipts.
From 2010 to 2017, as Conservatives reduced the corporation tax rate from 28% to today’s 19%, receipts doubled from £31.7bn to £62.7bn.
The corporation tax where Astra Zeneca is going is 12.5%. Ours is set to rise to 25%.
Raising it has nothing to do with balancing the books, it has to do with Sunak and Hunt being too weak to resist G7 corporation tax alignment being pushed by the US. Apparently a country the size of Ireland is better able to defend its national interest than we are.
Whatever. The UKG is facing a Brexit induced shortfall in receipts of at least £15 billion a year and the increase in corporation tax is its attempt to shore up the finances.
BTW and not going beyond the Telegraph headline: Truss is never proven to be right. Hence the shortest premiership on record.
And edit the minimum G7 corporation tax level is 15%. Clearly has nothing to do with this
What a bizarre post. You present no evidence that the alleged shortfall is 'Brexit induced' - as a matter of fact we soon stop paying EU membership fees, which will provide billions in additional fiscal headroom.
I have shown quite clearly that corporation tax cuts increase receipts rather than decrease them, and you've highlighted no counter evidence.
G7 countries have varying levels of corporation tax (being different countries) and the US is using its heft to get others to raise them. If you want me to point to their repeated demands, I can. The fact that most have not responded in the supine way that our Government has is not evidence that the push isn't there.
Surely there must be a space between years of medical and legal hoop-jumping and anyone being able to identify as anything anytime. Those two things seem quite distinct to me, suggesting that there should be room for a compromise.
I mean, this isn't Brexit!
The main thing is that legal recognition shouldn't be required for people to treat other people in a reasonable and respectful way in their daily lives.
It gets a bit more complicated when you decide how to categorise people in situations where there is a safeguarding aspect and an authority that has to make a judgement, such as with single-sex hospital wards. That's where their needs to be a legal dividing line, and the location of that dividing line is going to be more complicated than self-ID.
I think it is an example of where we need to relearn the difference between what needs to be regulated by law, and what needs to be regulated by not being an arsehole.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
To describe a murder in general terms as either 'hate related' or 'non hate related' is a demonstration of how official and regulated forms of language have departed from common sense and reality. It is entirely without meaning.
It's clearly not 'entirely without meaning', since definitions exist for the phrase. What you mean is that you don't like them.
Right. We've chosen to draw a distinction in law between crimes committed due to an animus towards an individual because of specific circumstances related only to that individual, and those committed against a person because they share attributes with other members of a group, and to regard the latter as worse.
So, killing a rich individual because they're related to you and you stand to inherit lots of money is one thing, but killing people at random solely because they are rich, and for whom you have no reason to kill that individual rich person rather than another, is something that we've decided is worse.
Why might this be? Well, a rich person can be expected to know who would benefit financially from their death, and so act with appropriate wariness around those individuals, but how are they to know who to protect themselves from if someone is killing rich people indiscriminately?
Indeed. I am very wary around my children and always go armed to the teeth when babysitting the grandchildren, whereas being male I take no precautions when dealing with multiple killers only of females.
The main reason I steer clear of this debate most of the time is precisely that people on both sides grab hold of the edge cases and run with them. They either obsess about those edge cases to the exclusion of everything else, or they obsess about the people obsessing about those edge cases.
It's even odder when they obsess about things happening in the USA that don't work in the same way in the UK.
FWIW, a reason why I post less here nowadays is that many threads are dominated by debate on the issue. I'm not saying that it's unimportant, or taking any side in the debate, but we can't be involved in everything, and as I don't know anyone who is trans or anyone who has had an unpleasant experience with a trans person, it feels a bit abstract to me.
There's no reason that it should matter to anyone that I post less - but I think it's relevant to PB that most voters are probably in much the same place as me on this. They aren't really against self-ID, want reasonable protection for everyone against abuse, and vaguely wish all sides well without giving it much thought. Governments and political parties who go on about it are likely to get a rather baffled reaction. That, rather than the Bill itself, is IMO what has led to some erosion of the SNP position recently.
Mr. Sandpit, the increasing numbers of children without present fathers and relatively few male school teachers, especially in primary school, naturally means a lower number of male role models. And women sometimes just don't get masculine behaviour (cf Gilette's bizarre view, contianed within its terrible advert, that playfighting is actual violence, or a man going to ask a woman out is some sort of bad thing).
And then people get surprised when a surrogate father figure is sought.
Comments
From 2010 to 2017, as Conservatives reduced the corporation tax rate from 28% to today’s 19%, receipts doubled from £31.7bn to £62.7bn.
The corporation tax where Astra Zeneca is going is 12.5%. Ours is set to rise to 25%.
Raising it has nothing to do with balancing the books, it has to do with Sunak and Hunt being too weak to resist G7 corporation tax alignment being pushed by the US. Apparently a country the size of Ireland is better able to defend its national interest than we are.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/02/12/sunaks-tax-blunders-prove-liz-truss-right-along/ (£)
Perhaps there is some brainwashing going on. Perhaps these organisations go too far. But I'd also suggest that there are kids out there who genuinely are trans. I'm not in favour of medical intervention before 16, but I sure as heck am in favour of them getting 'help' before that age - and help does not mean trying to persuade them they're wrong.
BTW and not going beyond the Telegraph headline: Truss is never proven to be right. Hence the shortest premiership on record.
And edit the minimum G7 corporation tax level is 15%. Clearly has nothing to do with this
It is an impressive case of one man versus the world.
Possibly he is a very brave man surrounded by a web of hypocrites, fools & liars ... but he comes across as a maniac.
He may be right ... but I'd want some corroboration.
One (male to female) has clearly desperately wanted to be female since very very young. Has always worn dresses, given the chance. He is, however, clearly psychologically/emotionally troubled, and is quite violent. He was adopted (from exactly what birth circumstances I don’t know) by a single woman who, I think, vastly underestimated how difficult it would be to raise a potentially troubled child alone: he hasn’t had the easiest of lives.
One (female to male) was a perfectly pleasant girl at primary school but a bit simple and easily led. She also matured physically very early. Horror and rejection of the womanly body by the girl who matures very young is not uncommon.
One (male to female) was only unusual in being a bit of a naughty boy, though he decided (probably correctly) at an early age he was gay.
In the world of 20 years ago my guess is that only the first of these would be identifying as the opposite sex, and that even for that individual his self-perception of being in the wrong body is part of a bigger package of issues.
That said, in a world of 40 years ago the third individual would be being bullied for being gay, or would be unhappily pretending not to be.
I stress that much of this is guesswork and I contribute it only for context.
The rest of your comment just proves my point. You’re another breast-chopper. UGH
I met clinicians and, most importantly, I asked to meet young people who had used the Tavistock’s services.”
https://twitter.com/CforWomenUK/status/1625031165848559616
And voting habits become ingrained by about middle age (you can see this of you track the “Blair cohort” of new voters in 1997).
So the Tories are not replenishing their voting pool
Look at the way the far right demonises drag queen story hour as “sexualising children”: The conclusion they want you to draw is that drag itself is inherently sexual & deviant at all times. You can see the same thing in the description of trans people as “AGPs” by the GC crowd when they’re talking amongst themselves: the point is to make trans-ness about sex & especially deviant or dangerous sex.
The syllogy runs something like: if it’s sexual, then it’s a danger to children, if it’s a danger to children then it should be shunned by society. The goal is to associate the outsider group with deviant sexuality & a danger to society’s children in the minds of the target audience. It’s an effective technique sadly.
I also think your understanding of what procedures are done to children at what speed are either utterly wrong, or cherry picked. There is currently a 5 year backlog for patients to be seen via the GIC, and that is only growing as more people are referred to it.
https://gic.nhs.uk/appointments/waiting-times/
The satisfaction rate for people who do have gender confirming surgeries is over 95% - which in medicine is astronomically high (the regret rate for having a baby is higher at around 8-10%, and regret rates for knee surgery reported as high as 30%). Saying "this shouldn't be allowed because they'll regret it" is just infantilising, and the fact it is typically used against people assigned female at birth shows an underlying form of "benevolent" misogyny, which is flipped when discussing people assigned male at birth to start talking about every male stranger as an inherent predator (when women are typically assaulted by men they know, in their family or direct community, and not by strangers).
I'm also sure I've shared this before, but it is also worth noting the levels of bureaucracy trans people need to go through to get what is a right to treatment enshrined by law:
https://youtu.be/v1eWIshUzr8
A society with a bunch of angry young men, with no positive role models to guide them along the right path, is a recipe for trouble.
It is you who owes me an apology, if you had any honour, or, indeed comprehension of what I have written. The post I wrote earlier was before I'd seen this latest post of yours. You will note that I expressed my sadness at the death of the teenager, something you notably failed to do, being more interested apparently in making points against other posters.
Frankly, if standing up for women's rights or against the medical abuse of troubled children, as set out in the Interim Cass Report (and as reported in the Sunday Times yesterday) gets you this kind of unjustified abuse I can see why some women give up. This debate has exposed how much misogyny there is when women stand up for themselves.
I would only add that one of my children was one of those referred to the Tavistock. We were fortunate in being able to find far far better care than they provided which is why they are now happy. I am furious at the way medical care for the vulnerable has been skewed by those pushing a harmful ideology based on pseudo-science and those enabling it through their cowardice and lack of care. The harm that is being done to women, to children and to those who genuinely have gender dysphoria (not the men with fetishes or a desire to harm women who have sheltered under the "trans" umbrella) is appalling. It should be discussed and the political implications should be discussed on a political site.
However, there is a problem, because the Sun readers responding to polls will tend to be the more engaged Sun readers - are they representative of the less engaged Sun readers?
YouGov, for example, seem to put some effort into attracting people to respond to their surveys by asking a very wide variety of questions - favourite tea-dunking biscuit, or whether zebras have white stripes on a black background, or black stripes on a white background - to encourage participation from people who are not so interested in the minutiae of daily politics, but will take a social media quiz to find out which Hogwarts house they would be sorted into*. This might be successful in drawing in some less engaged people who mostly don't want to think about politics.
It's a big problem. Polling methodology is based on the assumption that the sample is random, but non-response rates are so high that this assumption is barely tenable, and the polling sample is largely self-selecting. I'm therefore incredibly impressed that the polls bear any relation to reality at all. They have no right to do as well as they do. Which isn't that great, obviously.
* Probably Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff.
The trouble is the new rate rise isn't accompanied by base narrowing measures. Not yet anyway. It should be - targeted capex incentives, more on green investment (although that will be drowned out by the vast sums being thrown at US green investment under the IRA), potentially a deemed equity deduction to equalise with debt funding, and so on.
Ireland will of course be at 15% following BEPS pillar 2 next year, as they are bringing in a top-up tax. That would be roughly in line with the blended rate a large life sciences group would achieve in the UK under the patent box if they are performing the principal R&D activity in the UK. The UK also has more generous R&D credits than Ireland. However, Ireland is more tax efficient for generics or patented medicines where the R&D nexus is not in the UK.
And, no I don't like it and there are reasons for not liking these distortions.
My idea on how you live your life is from past comments. Your life is full of rich stories: but the problem with rich stories is that they can reveal a little more than you intend.
I'm also amused by your use of the word 'beta'. There's a trend by people (mostly on the right) to proclaim that sex is binary, yet they attempt to split men into non-binary (hence alphas, betas etc). Oddly enough, they always place themselves in the alphas. It's all rubbish.
"You’re another breast-chopper." Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound? Do you realise that it's also a little anti-trans (i.e. against ftom).
The stupidity of all of this is that we're probably not too far apart on many things, and as ever it's the small differences that divide massively.
But yes, I class you as anti-trans. Perhaps you ought to consider why I might think that, and I don't think it's because I'm a bad person.
Looking forward to some hot Rowling input.
'JK Rowling has accused Nicola Sturgeon of "riding roughshod" over women's rights and has said the First Minister will be held personally responsible if her overhaul of transgender laws leads to attacks on girls.
The Harry Potter author said that Ms Sturgeon would be to blame for cases of “voyeurism, sexual harassment, assault or rape” that she believes could result from allowing Scots to change their legal sex simply by signing a declaration.'
I come from the position of, people are going through issues, we treat them with love and respect and we support them. If they are gay, we support them. If they are trans, we support them.
That seems to contrast with, society is being destroyed by ideology and our kids are being brainwashed.
I can see that the latter isn't necessarily transphobic but I do think this is the difference of approach.
I am and try to be - imperfectly - accepting of change. Trans people do not scare me. Trans people do not impact me whatsoever. Perhaps that is deeply naive but based on polling the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course it is a difficult issue with many nuances - but my concern is that the people raging against it are doing it for either political or entirely cynical reasons. It is why I do not trust the Tories with it.
Come on Leon, you’re an intelligent man, or at least you do a good job of impersonating one here. At least try and acknowledge JJ’s arguments. Maybe you feel that even a 5% regret rate is too high for something as phsically invasive as breast amputation? Perhaps you think the stats are wrong? Try something: You can do it, I’m sure.
“I don’t like your argument, therefore you are a creep” is the worst argument I’ve ever seen. You can do better: I believe in you!
But that is two girls. How many girls in total in the school? Because pretty much every girl in the class. In the school. In all the schools in the borough. The city. The whiole fucking country. Are at risk of being abused and assaulted by boys and then men.
Two. Vs everyone else. Yet your focus isn't on the vast majority its on the two. Your examples are a genuine issue for those girls and their families. But not anyone else. But Andrew Tate, Incel, the whole wolf-whistling tits out culture is a genuine threat to literally everyone else.
I know which is the real threat.
https://twitter.com/PoliceWarr/status/1624885865171369985
Love it
So, killing a rich individual because they're related to you and you stand to inherit lots of money is one thing, but killing people at random solely because they are rich, and for whom you have no reason to kill that individual rich person rather than another, is something that we've decided is worse.
Why might this be? Well, a rich person can be expected to know who would benefit financially from their death, and so act with appropriate wariness around those individuals, but how are they to know who to protect themselves from if someone is killing rich people indiscriminately?
But the law states that it is lawful to exclude men - even those who fall within the definition of gender reassignment - from women's loos. That is for a very good reason because you cannot tell the difference between a man who is no risk and a man who is. That is why you keep all men out. There is also the privacy and dignity aspect, which are also important, and keep getting overlooked.
Saying that I would challenge someone who is a man in a woman's space is not being anti-trans. It is essential to keep me safe. I am not going to prejudice my safety and expecting me to do so in order not to hurt an man's feelings is misogyny of the purest kind.
A lesbian friend of mine who looks very butch was recently challenged in a loo (from behind) and when the woman apologised when she realised she had got it wrong my friend said there was no reason to apologise because it was exactly the right thing to do.
I have been one of the few posters on here who has repeatedly, both below and above the line, written about violence against women and child abuse (and our failure to deal with it) and medical scandals involving women and children. I have written about the political implications of how the GRR Bill was being brought through Holyrood and the Haldane judgment and the issue of sex offenders being able to obtain recognition as a woman, both of which then turned out to be big political stories. And about misogyny in the Labour Party - a theme picked up by a Guardian commentator a few days later.
That is what this forum should be for. But if it is going to descend into unwarranted personal attacks, then I am sorry but it is no longer for me.
It's only "a difficult issue with many nuances" if you want it to be. It is actually very, very straightforward. The trans deserve support and freedom from prejudice. There are a couple of edge cases where special rules are needed. It is not the case that people who point to the existence of the edge cases are "really" anti trans, and you can tell this because of a lot of misunderstood guff about the gay rights stuff that happened before you were born. What's difficult about that?
The incel thing is baffling. I loved Tom Cruise hamming it up in Magnolia as the male guru selling nonsense "Respect the Cock" lifestyle advice to inadequate men. But people like Andrew Tate have taken it to heart and social media allows rapid grooming of boys into hyper-"masculine" aggressive young idiots.
This is what really annoys me about the trans distraction. We are breeding an increasingly angry generation of young men who thing women are chattel. With the corresponding growth in abuse and attacks and worse. And yet we shouldn't be going after this real world threat to anyone with a vagina, because the real societal threat are the 0.2% edge case examples. We can't allow trans women because they might assault women. As if men aren't already doing that. hell, its the real world fear of being attacked by men which drives the understandable concerns of women about penis-equipped people being allowed near them.
So do we go after the cause - men attacking women - or the side-effect?
I would not call that an "edge case", it is the experience of mostly anyone wanting to transition.
I don't see being a "stay at home” house husband as being a bad thing. Do you?
"obsessed with tiny model trains " Nope. I have many minor obsessions, but I think they're all of the generally positive "Yay! Isn't this cool!" type.
"collects sheep manure"
I literally have no idea where this has come from.
"for no reason apparent to anyone, 50 marathons a year."
I'm *hoping* to do 52. I'm at six at the moment, so I'm one behind schedule (because of ice and frost). And I've got no idea why I'm doing it, aside from the challenge. The same reason I spent a year walking the coast 20 years ago. I probably won't succeed in this challenge as it's proving harder than I expected, but I'm a little proud of what I've done so far.
But the thing you didn't mention is that I'm a dad. A full-time dad. As I see it that is my role, and I love it. (We're currently learning some lines from the Lion King for a play.)
If that makes me a "gamma minus minus" in your eyes, then the problem is your vision, not me.
You’ll only wear yourself down and make yourself annoyed. Trust me, been there and warn the T-shirt.
You bought a guitar
To punish your ma
This site is absolutely obsessed with it.
Will an hour ever go again on PB by before The Artist Formerly Known As Byronic, ‘Josias Jessop’ - the marathon man on the internet, Trans-for-tea-Cyclefree and Carlotta the Spotter decline to talk about this endlessly boring subject?
FFS give it an effing rest.
Twit.
Have you realised how few gender-neutral loos there are? I see the right to have a pee as being fairly fundamental (and we could go into how the number of public toilets has reduced massively over the years). And I don't think it's safe to transwomen to always go into male loos.
Are you ashamed of your friend challenging a lesbian in a loo? Do you think that's good behaviour in a civilised society? Because I really hope you are ashamed of it. I also wonder if your lesbian friend will feel the same way when it happens three times a week.
I have also written many comments about the prevalence of violence in our society: not just against women and girls, but everyone. There is far too much violence. There're have been some interesting comments below re. the Tate situation.
But anyway, it doesn't matter. Either identity trumps biology, or it doesn't. We've just had a comprehensive public demonstration of why it shouldn't. Continuing to argue the point in the other direction is somewhere between absurd, and recklessly dangerous.
*sigh!*
I think I will go and wash some dishes - something with a positive outcome
Time for another prolonged break methinks.
I would be wary of taking his account uncritically.
And they now export double the amount of Pharma we do, with an economy 1/6 of our size.
But this UK Govt don't do long term industrial strategy further ahead than the end of their nose afaics.
1) It is some form of weird fad going on, where kids who are confused about life (and who wasn't when growing up) are fallaciously fixating on trans as being a 'solution' to their confusion.
2) There have always been many more trans people, but it was very, very hard to get either understanding or help, or be open about how they feel, and that's changing.
(Actually, there's a third if I put my tinfoil hat on: drugs in water...)
I'd argue more for #2 than #1. Certainly, there seems to be many more openly gay men and women over the last twenty and thirty years, as laws and social acceptance have made it okay to, in the words of the Tom Robinson Band: "Sing if you're glad to be gay". Might it be that it's now easier for people to say: "Yes, I think I'm trans", and parents are more likely to be understanding of that position ?
I mean, this isn't Brexit!
You seek to exclude transwomen from all female spaces, because you see them as a stalking horse for predatory individuals seeking access to women’s bodies. By doing so, you perpetuate the idea that transness is in & of itself associated with deviant sexuality.
You are free to believe these things of course & to campaign on that basis, but when people call that transphobic, well you may not like the term, but it’s not entirely wrong is it? It’s an explicitly anti-trans position: it depicts transwomen as a threat, an outside group to be excluded, kept away & put in a box marked “for adults only”, no children allowed.
I also think you minimise the effect this is having on other women, because you don’t want to admit that these downsides to your views are real. Your friend might have been OK with being challenged, but many women are not. I have read many stories of non-traditionally gender presenting women finding themselves being challenged in women’s toilets in recent years when it had never happened to them before. The end state of the kind of gender ideology you espouse is the kind of policing of women’s gender roles that I don’t think either of us desires.
Personally, it was this line of thought that led me away from GC views about this topic: at one time I had dived quite deep into the arguments & found those women who talked as you do quite convincing, but ultimately I couldn’t get away from the fact that to have the world you & people like you seemed to want would require policing away all the edge cases in order to ensure that no trans person ever crossed your strictly enforced gender line. Policing how women chose to present & dress themselves seemed to me to be a very high price to pay & ultimately it led to my unpicking everything. Where did intersex people fit into this heavily gendered world of yours? Stone butch lesbians? I wanted a world where people were free to present however they wished & you & people like you seemed to want to stop them, all to keep out a tiny proportion of the population because you were afraid they would provide cover for predatory men who were going to do what they were going to do anyway & no laws about access to women’s toilets were going to stop them.
The whole obsession with trans people just ended up seeming like a distraction from the real issue of male violence against women to me, as RochdalePioneers so eloquently points out, & one with greater costs to women than the GC crowd ever seems to want to admit, at least in public.
It's even odder when they obsess about things happening in the USA that don't work in the same way in the UK.
Huge amount of heat and light generated on this issue. Which isn't considered to be relevant to a large majority of the public.
There's a genuine, genuinely difficult problem at the heart of this- how should society balance the self understandings of trans and cis people? There's no easy win-win answer to that one. Then there are the myriad practical questions to work through.
But on top of that, there's a lot of noise. Some from people whose job is to do down Sturgeon. Some from professional Sturgeon fans. Some from the standard rentagobs.
Answering the first set of questions- even if the answer is "we need to slow down, stop or reverse" is hard enough. The tragedy is that the noise makes it so much harder.
It’s probably a bad thing. But what if the corpse consents. What if someone gives written consent for their corpse to be defiled after death by person x? Let’s calls him Josias Dickson
If Josias then goes and fucks the corpse is that ok? Who is it harming?
EXACTLY. The Scottish gender debate is the same
I have shown quite clearly that corporation tax cuts increase receipts rather than decrease them, and you've highlighted no counter evidence.
G7 countries have varying levels of corporation tax (being different countries) and the US is using its heft to get others to raise them. If you want me to point to their repeated demands, I can. The fact that most have not responded in the supine way that our Government has is not evidence that the push isn't there. Rancour.
It gets a bit more complicated when you decide how to categorise people in situations where there is a safeguarding aspect and an authority that has to make a judgement, such as with single-sex hospital wards. That's where their needs to be a legal dividing line, and the location of that dividing line is going to be more complicated than self-ID.
I think it is an example of where we need to relearn the difference between what needs to be regulated by law, and what needs to be regulated by not being an arsehole.
There's no reason that it should matter to anyone that I post less - but I think it's relevant to PB that most voters are probably in much the same place as me on this. They aren't really against self-ID, want reasonable protection for everyone against abuse, and vaguely wish all sides well without giving it much thought. Governments and political parties who go on about it are likely to get a rather baffled reaction. That, rather than the Bill itself, is IMO what has led to some erosion of the SNP position recently.
Mr. Sandpit, the increasing numbers of children without present fathers and relatively few male school teachers, especially in primary school, naturally means a lower number of male role models. And women sometimes just don't get masculine behaviour (cf Gilette's bizarre view, contianed within its terrible advert, that playfighting is actual violence, or a man going to ask a woman out is some sort of bad thing).
And then people get surprised when a surrogate father figure is sought.