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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
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?
I don't know if you've ever read The Stand by Steven King. It was written in 1978, and there's a character called Harold Lauder who was an incel long before incels were a thing. They've probably always existed, but social media lets them communicate with each other. You can, without much difficulty, find websites dedicated to tales, and mocked up photos, of the rape, torture, and murder of attractive young women.
I think it's a feature, not a bug, of social media that it generates hate, which in turn, generates traffic.
The Andrew Tates are the obvious problem that has to be dealt with. The more insidious problem is that of self-righteous misogyny. People who would view themselves as progressive, but who have no issue posting death and rape threats to people like JK Rowling. Or men who act behave like Lloyd Russell-Moyle. Extreme left groups have always been as riddled with misogyny as anti-semitism.
And, the third problem is people in positions of power, in both the private and public sectors, who turn a blind eye to these things because they just want a quiet life, at best, or despise the victims, at worst.
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.
It is the weirdest issue. And for a long time I largely agreed with you. A faraway battle of which we know little. Who cares. Move on. Enough
And in some ways I still agree with you. The endless pb arguments generate far more heat than light
However it is untrue to say it impacts very few people. It is only people without kids or with much older kids - generally older people - you and roger on this site today - who express that opinion
Anyone with kids in a big city in the UK/USA will have personally encountered the mad ideology that drives this issue and seen how dangerous and insidious it is (or how necessary and praiseworthy)
It is a huge subject on Mumsnet for a reason. It is also monumentally dull and/or entrenched
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 themserlves in.
Nobody on the forum has suggested that trans people are anything other than 'fine'. The issue is that the bar to being mtf trans (and therefore entitled to be treated as a woman in every respect) is being lowered to such an extent that any failed male athlete, cross-dressing pervert, or male criminal wanting to be locked in a women's prison, can take advantage. And there is no effective remedy because the law explicitly endorses self-id. As far as I can see, that harms transsexuals and their cause, but that's obviously for them to decide.
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.
It is the brain worm disease of the terminally online. The problem is that some very online people become quite transphobic, arguing for restricting people being able to live life without harassment, and arguing against that is then also seen as "being obsessed". I would happily not post about it here, if people weren't constantly posting about how giving trans people rights would mean the collapse of society as we know it...
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:
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
That's a decent analysis, but I think you underestimate the local politics around pandering to Nimbies, and consistency of policy. That also needs fixing.
For me, the Planning Officers and the Planning Inspectorate are about the only elements that keep the system sane, since local pols would rather ignore the law in pursuit of local politics. That also needs to be in the system.
I started developments in an ideal area a decade ago, with a 100 dwelling estate in an area which would eventually have potential for around 400 or so properties. The Nimbies who crawled out of the woodwork were astonishing, as were their demands that they should have a right to preserve "their view", a sudden interest in wildlife, and the full panoply of usual garbage.
The recommendation from the Planning Officers was yes, yet a certain politician by the name of Zadrozny leafleted 300+ houses 2-3 days before the (the Lib Dem 'find a mob and lead it' principle), and the planning committee voted "no", which meant that the local authority would be bearing the cost of a 90% probable loss Appeal as a means of avoiding responsibility.
One of the improvements paid for by my development was an improvement of the footway on 200m of the road to be a shared pedestrian / cycleway by increasing the width. This being a 10k vehicles a day road, with plenty of space in the highway land corridor (despite the peeps having decided it was "part of MY GARDEN outside my fence").
When the developments either side came up 5-6 years later, the District Council forgot to apply the same requirement, so there is now 200m of decent footway / cycleway, with as little as 1.2m on the sections either side. Idiots.
They also have not shown enough imagination to ensure cycling paths off the main road to the local primary school, which is adjacent to one end of the developments.
There are certainly issues about ensuring quality - on one of these further developments density has been increased post-Outline-Permission by removing garages, making the drives tandem drives, and using the space for more houses. So there the householders will be lazy and will all park one car on the pavement, making life miserable for older people with mobility scooters or mums with pushchairs.
A complex issue, needing both carrot and stick (the necessary stick being housing targets).
An important question is whether Local Authorities are sane enough to have more control, and how we can make them so, or whether we need better national standards for various aspects. As we perhaps need constraints on lowering of development quality in pursuit of minimum cost.
In our case, my development was rushed through in the gap between Local Plans in 2012/13. I think they still haven't got one.
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:
F1: 10 days until the only pre-season test (23-25) commences.
As always, take that with a boulder of salt. Headline times will be largely meaningless. However, the test can be useful for assessing serious problems. You can hide pace easily with compounds, engine modes, fuel loads. Hiding the fact your engine explodes every three laps is trickier.
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
It doesn’t help that the anti-trans falangists post without any particular insight or wit. They are just fucking boring.
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 themserlves in.
Nobody on the forum has suggested that trans people are anything other than 'fine'. The issue is that the bar to being mtf trans (and therefore entitled to be treated as a woman in every respect) is being lowered to such an extent that any failed male athlete, cross-dressing pervert, or male criminal wanting to be locked in a women's prison, can take advantage. And there is no effective remedy because the law explicitly endorses self-id. As far as I can see, that harms transsexuals and their cause, but that's obviously for them to decide.
The much bigger issue is the imposition of genderfluid ideology on children
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.
It is the brain worm disease of the terminally online. The problem is that some very online people become quite transphobic, arguing for restricting people being able to live life without harassment, and arguing against that is then also seen as "being obsessed". I would happily not post about it here, if people weren't constantly posting about how giving trans people rights would mean the collapse of society as we know it...
Alternatively, misguided homosexual/progressive politicians could stop trying no force revolutionary laws, unwanted by the majority of voters, onto those same voters, when the voters can quite obviously see that these laws will allow male rapists into female prisons
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Trans people do not need documentation to use the loos they are most comfortable with - and a GRC has no impact on what spaces trans people can access, as people have said time and again. What a GRC allows is for the government to recognise someone as their gender on legal documents - marriage certificates, taxes and, as in the case of this poor girl who was murdered, their death certificate.
Making that process easier could prevent, for example, this indignity in death:
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
I can see that the trans issue has urgent aspects for some of us, but I must say today that the news that the Pentagon still hasn't got a clue what it's shot down looks to be somewhat newer , and more currently important , news.
Either a terrestrial adversary is presumably way further ahead than what has been previously understood, or current terrestrial science can't cover it. Both of these are important possibilties.
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.
It is the brain worm disease of the terminally online. The problem is that some very online people become quite transphobic, arguing for restricting people being able to live life without harassment, and arguing against that is then also seen as "being obsessed". I would happily not post about it here, if people weren't constantly posting about how giving trans people rights would mean the collapse of society as we know it...
Alternatively, misguided homosexual/progressive politicians could stop trying no force revolutionary laws, unwanted by the majority of voters, onto those same voters, when the voters can quite obviously see that these laws will allow male rapists into female prisons
Maybe have a quiet word
Yes, it's that scary gay agenda trying to attack your women, an entirely rational position and not at all a conspiratorial reactionary screed. I'm sure all the people who make so much money of the gender affirming care you discuss would all just randomly be Jewish as well...
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?
According to the CPS
"The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race Religion Disability Sexual orientation Transgender identity"
I think we need to recognise hate crimes, so we can treat hate crimes differently when needed. For example, if someone reports that someone has tagged their initials on the wall of their house, should this be treated the same as a Jewish person reporting that someone has sprayed a swastika on their house?
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.
It is the weirdest issue. And for a long time I largely agreed with you. A faraway battle of which we know little. Who cares. Move on. Enough
And in some ways I still agree with you. The endless pb arguments generate far more heat than light
However it is untrue to say it impacts very few people. It is only people without kids or with much older kids - generally older people - you and roger on this site today - who express that opinion
Anyone with kids in a big city in the UK/USA will have personally encountered the mad ideology that drives this issue and seen how dangerous and insidious it is (or how necessary and praiseworthy)
It is a huge subject on Mumsnet for a reason. It is also monumentally dull and/or entrenched
Yes, as a parent, it is disturbingly close to home. The messianic fervour with which schools follow the stonewall line is frightening. I went round a local senior school recently. Of the display material on walls and in corridors etc, a good 40% plus was on LBGTQIA+. A further 20% was on race, and another 20% on the environment, with the remaining 20% devoted to either administrative or academic matters.
My guess is that the number of kids who would genuinely benefit from being able to live openly as the opposite sex who benefit from this approach is far smaller than the number of gay kids, girls who are horrified by their suddenly womanly bodies, and kids with other issues who are needlessly pushed down this route.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
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.
As I have said many times on this site - the policing of who goes into women's loos is more dangerous for cis women who just look a bit butch than it is for trans women who self report literally not going to the toilet at all in public for fear of being abused. We have more accounts of cis women being assaulted / berated because women thought they were trans, than trans people being able to tell their own stories. Your friend saying it was "the right thing to do" - would she have said that if the other woman called her a liar, said she didn't believe her, and continued berating her anyway? And again, how would you police these things? Genital inspection on entry? Like Ron DeSantis - menstrual tracking of all girls competing in sports? Completely absurd.
@leon - coming back to a brief conversation the other day - in that GT may have been intentionally buried to protect its knowledge from earthquakes - many of the prehistoric monuments in Wales (and elsewhere) were originally buried - maybe to protect their 'knowledge' from the elements. But some structures such as Newgrange in Ireland remain buried. What if the hidden side of the stones in Newgrange and elsewhere contain hidden markings or symbols??? Worth taking a look ???
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
It doesn’t help that the anti-trans falangists post without any particular insight or wit. They are just fucking boring.
I don't know. Leon going from 'Do you doubt my word?' to 'I could be some mild mannered fantasist' in the very next post is quite entertaining.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Apparently, I was wrong. The story now is that Isla Bryson is a "one in a million", Nicola Sturgeon is the unluckiest politician in the universe, and we should let men into women's prisons to attack female inmates as some sort of equalising mechanism because currently it's a much smaller issue*.
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.
It is the brain worm disease of the terminally online. The problem is that some very online people become quite transphobic, arguing for restricting people being able to live life without harassment, and arguing against that is then also seen as "being obsessed". I would happily not post about it here, if people weren't constantly posting about how giving trans people rights would mean the collapse of society as we know it...
Alternatively, misguided homosexual/progressive politicians could stop trying no force revolutionary laws, unwanted by the majority of voters, onto those same voters, when the voters can quite obviously see that these laws will allow male rapists into female prisons
Maybe have a quiet word
Yes, it's that scary gay agenda trying to attack your women, an entirely rational position and not at all a conspiratorial reactionary screed. I'm sure all the people who make so much money of the gender affirming care you discuss would all just randomly be Jewish as well...
Transsexual is a planet in the galaxy of Transylvania.
Speaking of which, why hasn't the Pentagon published any photographs of the UFOs? I mean those objects they've described as being a lot smaller than the Chinese balloon they shot down off of North Carolina.
When they eventually publish some, they're likely to be memorable ones composed in a Poussin-Spielberg style - regardless of whether they show the objects cruising in the sky by unknown means of propulsion or being recovered, damaged, from ice or lake.
If you all will excuse me for a moment, here's a thought on the question posed in the header: Biden's chances for re-election depend on how well the American economy is doing in 2024. Mostly.
And, if there is anyone who knows for sure how well it will be doing, they ought to share that knowledge with us.
After that, his chances depend more on foreign policy successes than anything else. And he has had some.
Full disclosure: In 2016 and 2020 I cast write-in votes for Mitt Romney in the presidential race. (In 2016, I advised people to vote for Trump if social issues were most important to them, for Clinton if foreign policy was, and for the Libertarian, if economic policy was.)
No photos, but clearly lots of questions. If some of the pilots found them to be affecting their sensors, either China, some private individual or other, or something our current science doesn't understand, is far ahead of whatever the world's most advanced and wealthy - until now ? - military industrial complex has to offer.
That may have implications for global power and security, from whichever angle it's looked at.
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
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.
It is the weirdest issue. And for a long time I largely agreed with you. A faraway battle of which we know little. Who cares. Move on. Enough
And in some ways I still agree with you. The endless pb arguments generate far more heat than light
However it is untrue to say it impacts very few people. It is only people without kids or with much older kids - generally older people - you and roger on this site today - who express that opinion
Anyone with kids in a big city in the UK/USA will have personally encountered the mad ideology that drives this issue and seen how dangerous and insidious it is (or how necessary and praiseworthy)
It is a huge subject on Mumsnet for a reason. It is also monumentally dull and/or entrenched
Yes, as a parent, it is disturbingly close to home. The messianic fervour with which schools follow the stonewall line is frightening. I went round a local senior school recently. Of the display material on walls and in corridors etc, a good 40% plus was on LBGTQIA+. A further 20% was on race, and another 20% on the environment, with the remaining 20% devoted to either administrative or academic matters.
My guess is that the number of kids who would genuinely benefit from being able to live openly as the opposite sex who benefit from this approach is far smaller than the number of gay kids, girls who are horrified by their suddenly womanly bodies, and kids with other issues who are needlessly pushed down this route.
I've made a comment before that it cleverly masquerades as a 'fringe' issue, piggybacking on to liberal notions of diversity; but in practice has actually facilitated a cultural revolution which many people don't understand and find impossible to engage with. On a wider level it is interesting as it is associated with the power of the left to facilitate societal change through its dominance of culture. If you want to wish everyone well and let them get on with their lives, then unfortunately you need to engage with this, because upon examination it becomes clear that some of the ideology behind a lot of this stuff is fundamentally extremely intolerant.
I do think this is one area where the right seem to be making some progress in the US, Trump has certainly caught on to it and thinks it is a vote winner. If he does win in 2024 and this is a factor, it will the fault of the liberals for accepting too much of the agenda uncritically. It looks like the SNP made a major error on this front, for similar reasons.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Apparently, I was wrong. The story now is that Isla Bryson is a "one in a million", Nicola Sturgeon is the unluckiest politician in the universe, and we should let men into women's prisons to attack female inmates as some sort of equalising mechanism because currently it's a much smaller issue*.
*sarcasm
There are a total of 15 transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons for all crimes committed out of 5.5 million population. I don't know but Isla Bryson may the only one there for sexual crimes. He committed the crimes when he was still a man; the Gender Identification Reform Bill has no bearing on prison policy - in fact it has a very limited effect.
As an aside, the berdache tribe had the berdache gender, which was a man who plucked his beard out, lived with a married couple as a sort of second wife, and cut his legs to simulate menstruation. Interestingly, this was presented as a third option.
From my fuzzy memory of learning about it in university.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Apparently, I was wrong. The story now is that Isla Bryson is a "one in a million", Nicola Sturgeon is the unluckiest politician in the universe, and we should let men into women's prisons to attack female inmates as some sort of equalising mechanism because currently it's a much smaller issue*.
*sarcasm
There are a total of 15 transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons for all crimes committed out of 5.5 million population. I don't know but Isla Bryson may the only one there for sexual crimes. He committed the crimes when he was still a man; the Gender Identification Reform Bill has no bearing on prison policy - in fact it has a very limited effect.
So, yes.
Didn't it come to light that Tiffany Scott was also there for sexual crimes?
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
It's rather better than you'd expect on the drivelpipe - hence the outrage below the line from the revolving bow tie reactionary frothers.
The problem for IRL shitposters like Anderson is that they continually have to move the Overfuck Window to generate the same level of engagement. Eventually he's going to say something that's too much even for the Tories and he'll end up being a liability.
In a just society he'd be breaking rocks in a penal colony on South Thule.
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?
According to the CPS
"The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race Religion Disability Sexual orientation Transgender identity"
I think we need to recognise hate crimes, so we can treat hate crimes differently when needed. For example, if someone reports that someone has tagged their initials on the wall of their house, should this be treated the same as a Jewish person reporting that someone has sprayed a swastika on their house?
My example was deliberately and carefully chosen to illustrate the principle by generalising it to a group not generally covered by that principle. I thought it also might inject a helpful element of levity into the discussion.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Apparently, I was wrong. The story now is that Isla Bryson is a "one in a million", Nicola Sturgeon is the unluckiest politician in the universe, and we should let men into women's prisons to attack female inmates as some sort of equalising mechanism because currently it's a much smaller issue*.
*sarcasm
There are a total of 15 transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons for all crimes committed out of 5.5 million population. I don't know but Isla Bryson may the only one there for sexual crimes. He committed the crimes when he was still a man; the Gender Identification Reform Bill has no bearing on prison policy - in fact it has a very limited effect.
So, yes.
Yes, the case is relevant to prisons policy but it doesn't blow up the case for an easier route to a gender recognition certificate.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Apparently, I was wrong. The story now is that Isla Bryson is a "one in a million", Nicola Sturgeon is the unluckiest politician in the universe, and we should let men into women's prisons to attack female inmates as some sort of equalising mechanism because currently it's a much smaller issue*.
*sarcasm
There are a total of 15 transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons for all crimes committed out of 5.5 million population. I don't know but Isla Bryson may the only one there for sexual crimes. He committed the crimes when he was still a man; the Gender Identification Reform Bill has no bearing on prison policy - in fact it has a very limited effect.
So, yes.
That's about 0.2% of the prison population.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of the 15 are blokes who have cracked up mentally and decided they want to be girlies in response to either being abused in prison for being gay or being sexually abused by other prisoners or both. Others are probably the product of clinicians trying to meet quotas.
As an aside, the berdache tribe had the berdache gender, which was a man who plucked his beard out, lived with a married couple as a sort of second wife, and cut his legs to simulate menstruation. Interestingly, this was presented as a third option.
From my fuzzy memory of learning about it in university.
Doesn't sound a particularly attractive lifestyle. Also appears to be getting cause and effect of menstruation the wrong way around.
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
The Guardian chose to illustrate a piece on the Wisconsin supreme court with a photo of:
'The Minnesota supreme court building in St Paul. In a state where political control is split between Republicans and Democrats, the court has become a forum for final decisions'
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
The far right in Ireland are now suddenly very concerned with the plight of the homeless as part of their campaign against refugees. Does that mean I should stop complaining about the Irish government's failure to tackle homelessness?
Odd that Brexit did the same to the German figures...
German car production fell from 5.7 million in 2016 to 3.4 million in 2022, so not quite as bad as the UK fall. The biggest problem for UK vehicle manufacture is the lack of investment however. German investment is running ten times higher.
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.
Odd that Brexit did the same to the German figures...
German car production fell from 5.7 million in 2016 to 3.4 million in 2022, so not quite as bad as the UK fall. The biggest problem for UK vehicle manufacture is the lack of investment however. German investment is running ten times higher.
Fine - I was trying to refute the Swedish Scottish idiot.
It's rather better than you'd expect on the drivelpipe - hence the outrage below the line from the revolving bow tie reactionary frothers.
The problem for IRL shitposters like Anderson is that they continually have to move the Overfuck Window to generate the same level of engagement. Eventually he's going to say something that's too much even for the Tories and he'll end up being a liability.
In a just society he'd be breaking rocks in a penal colony on South Thule.
Ghastly bloke. Saying mean spirited, simple simon things that help nobody. Although years ago he used to do really admirable work in the care sector, I was reading. Gone bad since for some reason. I'm not as sure as you (or the article writer) that he'll backfire on the Tory vote but I hope so.
Well worth the read, it's absolutely brilliant and accurate to my experiences of renting when I was in my 20s and of what I hear from the juniors in my team, extremely accurate to today.
The government hasn't been listening for far, far too long. Labour oversaw the explosion of the cowboy buy to let landlord and the Tories haven't done nearly enough to force them out of the sector and fund local authorities to build new social rental properties.
The reason my generation are not becoming conservative is because of this, the government hasn't listened to us about housing for 10+ years. My parents bought a 4 bedroom detached house in swanky (even then) suburb for under £150k and they bought it at a 3.5x income multiple with no help from my grandparents. To do that today for the same house, even with a £100k+ household income, people would need over 10x on the income multiple and a £200k deposit.
Every single politician should read the article, because it rings true for everyone who has rented in London in the last 15 years and it's getting worse. We need more affordable rents, more houses for sale and to block foreign ownership of property as other major cities do across the world.
My favourite part of renting in London is how my rent goes to someone who lives and pays taxes in Hong Kong. So it's not like the 45% of my post-tax salary I pay in rent for a parking-space sized bedroom even circulates within the London economy, it is just sucked out.
An inevitable example of the UK continually living beyond its means.
To pay for our excess consumption of imported consumer tat and foreign holidays the UK has to steadily sell its assets.
Leading to the income from them - whether that is rents on housing, interest on government borrowings or profits from businesses - moving from this country to its foreign owners.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
@leon - coming back to a brief conversation the other day - in that GT may have been intentionally buried to protect its knowledge from earthquakes - many of the prehistoric monuments in Wales (and elsewhere) were originally buried - maybe to protect their 'knowledge' from the elements. But some structures such as Newgrange in Ireland remain buried. What if the hidden side of the stones in Newgrange and elsewhere contain hidden markings or symbols??? Worth taking a look ???
I have a sneaking suspicion that when - if - all the Tas Tepeler are finally unearthed we will find convincing evidence they had written language. There are already enough odd symbols we can see
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
The far right in Ireland are now suddenly very concerned with the plight of the homeless as part of their campaign against refugees. Does that mean I should stop complaining about the Irish government's failure to tackle homelessness?
I was hitherto unaware of your longstanding campaign against the Irish government’s failure to tackle homelessness, but keep up the good work by all means.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Question for you, not me. Sorry.
You don't understand that "Meanwhile [x, y and z] are massively bigger issues" is classic whataboutery?
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
The far right in Ireland are now suddenly very concerned with the plight of the homeless as part of their campaign against refugees. Does that mean I should stop complaining about the Irish government's failure to tackle homelessness?
No - but in general if almost every member of a very nasty group of people support a cause you also support it's surely worth considering why. Might not - probably won't - change your views but every so often it might. Or at least bring a wider perspective. Either way, better than just saying "I have my take on XYZ and it's utterly irrelevant to me who agrees or disagrees". There's a notion this indicates integrity and strength of mind. It doesn't imo. What it more indicates to me is a certain mule-headed arrogance.
Not talking about you or the trans issue in particular here btw, very much not, this is a generic point I'm making - given you genericized it with the homelessness in Ireland comparison.
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
On the other point about the post below on photos, having departed from the cold war way of doing things on UAP's, the Pentagon will have to deal with a new issue ; sustained media interest and questions.
The standard Cold War Pentagon modus operandi was to pretend that it understood each and every one of these sightings, and it was all wrapped up and sorted out, for reasons of domestic and global prestige , and reassurance.
Now having followed the pattern of the last two years, of having been more open with information, they'll have to deal with follow-up interest.
The media isn't going to just "forget" that they've both stressed the unknown origin of the objects , so far, and that they've said that they've engaged them ; they will keep asking questions of what has been made of the debris and invrestigated of it, for instance. And similiarly the political class will also get their oar in, as Rubio has today, drawing attention to previously declassified reports shown to Congressmen , from last year I think it was , now .
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Question for you, not me. Sorry.
You don't understand that "Meanwhile [x, y and z] are massively bigger issues" is classic whataboutery?
You are more likely to be killed by lightening than sexually attacked by a trans woman isn't whataboutery either. It's a comparison.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Apparently, I was wrong. The story now is that Isla Bryson is a "one in a million", Nicola Sturgeon is the unluckiest politician in the universe, and we should let men into women's prisons to attack female inmates as some sort of equalising mechanism because currently it's a much smaller issue*.
*sarcasm
There are a total of 15 transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons for all crimes committed out of 5.5 million population. I don't know but Isla Bryson may the only one there for sexual crimes. He committed the crimes when he was still a man; the Gender Identification Reform Bill has no bearing on prison policy - in fact it has a very limited effect.
So, yes.
You change the law and people change their actions, there are a total of 15 today, pre-GIRB. In comparison there are a total of ~700 in prison for sexual offences.
Introduce the GIRB without any safeguarding and that number could very quickly rise as more of the ~700 decide that they want to be housed with women instead of men.
That's why there's a need for safeguarding. Introduce proper safeguarding and the safeguarding applies to the 15, do away with safeguarding and it applies to as many of the 700 who choose to have it apply to them.
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.
However some give money to their families all the time. I am always helping my daughter, gave her a large deposit for a substantial property that is better than my own , help her so she can have horses , holidays for the family , etc etc. You should not always judge people by your own family Max , I am sure there are a lot more like me.
Well done to your daughter on choosing to be born to wealthy parents!
It has been hard earned for sure and have had plenty of poor times in the past
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Question for you, not me. Sorry.
You don't understand that "Meanwhile [x, y and z] are massively bigger issues" is classic whataboutery?
You are more likely to be killed by lightening than sexually attacked by a trans women isn't whataboutery either. It's a comparison.
The law doesn't just apply to trans women, it applies to all men who choose to self-identify since there is no safeguarding.
What part of that are you struggling to comprehend? 🤦♂️
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.
Absolutely sick what has happened and exactly what I suspected with Sturgeon opening up a can of worms and bringing out all the nutters. Ill thought out policies that would obviously not help the people concerned but draw attention and incite the nutters.
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
When they consider somebody else more likely to deliver independence.
At the moment, there isn't anyone obviously able to do so. Salmond is finished. Swinney is, well. Cross is a bit green still. The Greens are even more 'well' than John Swinney. Robertson doesn't seem to have the same heft in Edinburgh he had in Westminster.
Of course, at some point they may decide to roll the dice anyway but nobody has ever got rich betting on Sturgeon's failure.
An SNP minister has suggested setting up a “Yes Party” to contest the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence.
Ivan McKee is the latest senior party figure to have tried to change Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to force the constitutional issue.
The first minister plans to try and start exit talks with the UK if more than half of the electorate vote for pro-independence parties at the general election. The SNP is set to debate the issue.
Critics of the proposal include Stewart McDonald, the Glasgow South MP, Alex Neil, the former health secretary, and Angus MacNeil, the Western Isles MP who wants a snap Holyrood election to act as the de facto vote.
With only SNP and teh nutters running it allowed to make policy , that ain't going to work. The headcases want people to sign up to their code of conduct of what you can and cannot do or say to be a part of their YES , vote me back on the gravy train, party
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Question for you, not me. Sorry.
You don't understand that "Meanwhile [x, y and z] are massively bigger issues" is classic whataboutery?
You are more likely to be killed by lightening than sexually attacked by a trans woman isn't whataboutery either. It's a comparison.
You wrote: We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Are you really telling me that you didn't intend the reader to infer "which we should be talking about instead"?
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Question for you, not me. Sorry.
You don't understand that "Meanwhile [x, y and z] are massively bigger issues" is classic whataboutery?
You are more likely to be killed by lightening than sexually attacked by a trans woman isn't whataboutery either. It's a comparison.
I should add, while the risk of trans women acting as sexual predators is very small, I am open to reducing it further. @DavidL had some sensible suggestions in this area. It's clear the UKG in its S35 submission has no interest in improving the GIRB but stopping it entirely.
I would also say it would be worth putting more effort into reducing men on women; men on men and women on women and men violence because the scale is much larger. But that's prioritisation, not whataboutery.
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
An SNP minister has suggested setting up a “Yes Party” to contest the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence.
Ivan McKee is the latest senior party figure to have tried to change Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to force the constitutional issue.
The first minister plans to try and start exit talks with the UK if more than half of the electorate vote for pro-independence parties at the general election. The SNP is set to debate the issue.
Critics of the proposal include Stewart McDonald, the Glasgow South MP, Alex Neil, the former health secretary, and Angus MacNeil, the Western Isles MP who wants a snap Holyrood election to act as the de facto vote.
With only SNP and teh nutters running it allowed to make policy , that ain't going to work. The headcases want people to sign up to their code of conduct of what you can and cannot do or say to be a part of their YES , vote me back on the gravy train, party
They are following the Brexit playbook.
Try and get everyone to vote for their own private dream, even if they are incompatible, and hope to sort out the details later.
And hope nobody notices what a shit idea it was in the first place
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
Let us start with what I think is problematic rhetoric from pro-GRR campaigners, especially online.
A few trans rights activists are determined to portray all critics of GRR as being hard right. This is spectacularly unfair.
Also
One result? We have ended up in the absurd situation of some anti-GRR voices deciding that it is a slur – rather than an empirical observation – to say that far-right activists support their cause.
As her own stance unravelled last month, Nicola Sturgeon provoked outrage when she said some but not all GRR opponents were transphobes and racists.
The First Minister was accused of deflection. But she he was also right: some of those rallying against trans laws do hold chauvinistic views, as a cursory scroll through social media would demonstrate.
Ms Sturgeon’s words were then misrepresented. She had smeared, internet activists said, the entire gender critical movement as bigots. I think this falsification gave a free pass to proper fascists.
'In 2018 Berkeley launched a “cluster search” for five faculty to teach biological sciences. From 894 applications, it created a longlist based on diversity statements alone, eliminating 680 candidates without examining their research or other credentials.'
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.
If we listen to the hysteria, trans women are the number one threat to the safety of women. That they represent a tiny fraction of the cases where women are assaulted / raped / murdered or even fear for their safety with that person walking in lockstep behind them doesn't matter. Unless we're foaming on about the trans risk we're anti-women.
The GRR bill got parts right and parts wrong. As so many laws do. But we can't say that because trans produces absurd levels of absolutism where each noisy extreme screams at each other. This is a societal change thing - despite trans not being a new thing there is a big element within society who think this is a change too far. And perhaps it is, but the response should be to find ways to bring people with them.
I absolutely respect the people arguing for women's safety and safe spaces. And yet all the energy is expended rejecting the trans threat. When the lived and very real threat is men who are men. By endlessly looping back over the GRR thing as a wedge issue we're letting men off the hook.
All Sturgeon's fault , they chose to ignore all public opinion and anybody who did not slavishly follow their narrow vision , all based on the small clique of liek minded charities they fund. I have said for last few weeks all for self aggrandisement and very detrimental to the trans population.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Question for you, not me. Sorry.
You don't understand that "Meanwhile [x, y and z] are massively bigger issues" is classic whataboutery?
You are more likely to be killed by lightening than sexually attacked by a trans women isn't whataboutery either. It's a comparison.
The law doesn't just apply to trans women, it applies to all men who choose to self-identify since there is no safeguarding.
What part of that are you struggling to comprehend? 🤦♂️
I understand, and have said upthread, that the GIRB does introduce an additional risk. Based on experience in other countries that introduced similar legislation, and on experts in this field, it doesn't look to be a big delta on what is already a low risk. Not least because the legislation is unlikely to lead to a big increase in identifying trans women of any kind, let alone sexual predators.
I would always minimise risk if it can be done at low cost.
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.
We have been here many times though , recent grooming gangs , previous figures liek jimmy saville , certain northern politician etc, all denied , covered up by teh local services , politicians etc for years. I would tend to side with the "maniac" as you put it.
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 don't think people are evaluating the risks. Yes the Gender Identification Reform Bill increases a risk of identified trans women sexually attacking women. The original risk is real, but minute; the increase to that risk caused by GIRB is also minute.
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
Ah, yes, the old "we can only deal with one problem at a time" fallacy.
Ah, yes, the old "straw man" fallacy.
I mean, that's literally what you and at least one other in this thread are saying.
That literally wasn't what I was saying. I am saying the risk is extremely low but people don't assess it. I don't see it as a "problem to be dealt with" but as a risk/benefit decision where trans people, who are overwhelmingly kind people and NOT rapists, might get a less humiliating process for identification against a very small risk to the population at large.
If it's not what you were saying, why descend to whataboutery?
Question for you, not me. Sorry.
You don't understand that "Meanwhile [x, y and z] are massively bigger issues" is classic whataboutery?
You are more likely to be killed by lightening than sexually attacked by a trans women isn't whataboutery either. It's a comparison.
The law doesn't just apply to trans women, it applies to all men who choose to self-identify since there is no safeguarding.
What part of that are you struggling to comprehend? 🤦♂️
Hopefully off-topic vs the argument of the day: people not working. How have we managed to end up with both a big shortage of workers and millions economically inactive?
Seems like there is a perfect storm of push and pull factors. To get to work is too bloody expensive - commuting and childcare costs are off the scale stupid compared to so many of our neighbouring competitors. And once you are there so much work is now low pay, low opportunity, poor conditions.
Tories used to campaign on "make work pay" and have failed miserably. Cutting welfare payments doesn't suddenly make that job which doesn't pay enough viable. We have employers who make large profits and receive vast subsidies - all the supermarkets as one example.
So what can we do about it? Investment into childcare is a starter for 10. It is pointless / impossible for many working aged mums to go back to the job they had. We have to fix that - much better maternity pay (driven via tax incentives to employers) and nursery providers who aren't doing minimal cost to charge maximum profits.
...In the U.S., President Joe Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act, a $280 billion package that includes $52 billion of funding to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
The EU, meanwhile, has earmarked 43 billion euros ($45.9 billion) for Europe’s semiconductor industry with the aim of producing 20% of the world’s semiconductors by 2030...
...The U.K. won’t have the kind of financial firepower to match those bold spending packages, they say. However, they’re hopeful the country will commit to investment in the several millions, tax incentives, and an easier immigration process for high-skilled workers...
...A U.K. semiconductor strategy was expected to come out last year. But it has faced a series of delays due to political instability. The government previously suggested establishing a national institution, among other initiatives, to boost its semiconductor industry.
“The rumors I’ve heard is [it may arrive] any day now,” Chris Ballance, co-founder of U.K. quantum computing startup Oxford Ionics, told CNBC. However, he added the process had been “going on for the last four or five months.”
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
The far right in Ireland are now suddenly very concerned with the plight of the homeless as part of their campaign against refugees. Does that mean I should stop complaining about the Irish government's failure to tackle homelessness?
No - but in general if almost every member of a very nasty group of people support a cause you also support it's surely worth considering why. Might not - probably won't - change your views but every so often it might. Or at least bring a wider perspective. Either way, better than just saying "I have my take on XYZ and it's utterly irrelevant to me who agrees or disagrees". There's a notion this indicates integrity and strength of mind. It doesn't imo. What it more indicates to me is a certain mule-headed arrogance.
Not talking about you or the trans issue in particular here btw, very much not, this is a generic point I'm making - given you genericized it with the homelessness in Ireland comparison.
Sure, and to generalise it further, I sometimes do a double-take when I see who has liked a particular comment of mine. As I've said upthread, it's worth taking time, sometimes, to reflect on your opinion.
But the point I was making was that the far right will latch onto any issue, worthy or unworthy, if they think it will advance their cause. it's a very fallible heuristic to use to govern your opinions.
...In the U.S., President Joe Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act, a $280 billion package that includes $52 billion of funding to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
The EU, meanwhile, has earmarked 43 billion euros ($45.9 billion) for Europe’s semiconductor industry with the aim of producing 20% of the world’s semiconductors by 2030...
This was mentioned in passing last week.
There is a global trade war brewing between the US, the EU and China.
And we are on the outside with our noses pressed against the window while decisions are made that will affect our future.
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.
As I have said many times on this site - the policing of who goes into women's loos is more dangerous for cis women who just look a bit butch than it is for trans women who self report literally not going to the toilet at all in public for fear of being abused. We have more accounts of cis women being assaulted / berated because women thought they were trans, than trans people being able to tell their own stories. Your friend saying it was "the right thing to do" - would she have said that if the other woman called her a liar, said she didn't believe her, and continued berating her anyway? And again, how would you police these things? Genital inspection on entry? Like Ron DeSantis - menstrual tracking of all girls competing in sports? Completely absurd.
As soon as you use the made up bollocks "cis" word , your whole point can be ignored.
...In the U.S., President Joe Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act, a $280 billion package that includes $52 billion of funding to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
The EU, meanwhile, has earmarked 43 billion euros ($45.9 billion) for Europe’s semiconductor industry with the aim of producing 20% of the world’s semiconductors by 2030...
...The U.K. won’t have the kind of financial firepower to match those bold spending packages, they say. However, they’re hopeful the country will commit to investment in the several millions, tax incentives, and an easier immigration process for high-skilled workers...
...A U.K. semiconductor strategy was expected to come out last year. But it has faced a series of delays due to political instability. The government previously suggested establishing a national institution, among other initiatives, to boost its semiconductor industry.
“The rumors I’ve heard is [it may arrive] any day now,” Chris Ballance, co-founder of U.K. quantum computing startup Oxford Ionics, told CNBC. However, he added the process had been “going on for the last four or five months.”
Given we have Brexited, and given the consequent disinvestment in the UK, what are the best/least bad bets for the UK at this point, for our niche industries?
...In the U.S., President Joe Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act, a $280 billion package that includes $52 billion of funding to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
The EU, meanwhile, has earmarked 43 billion euros ($45.9 billion) for Europe’s semiconductor industry with the aim of producing 20% of the world’s semiconductors by 2030...
...The U.K. won’t have the kind of financial firepower to match those bold spending packages, they say. However, they’re hopeful the country will commit to investment in the several millions, tax incentives, and an easier immigration process for high-skilled workers...
...A U.K. semiconductor strategy was expected to come out last year. But it has faced a series of delays due to political instability. The government previously suggested establishing a national institution, among other initiatives, to boost its semiconductor industry.
“The rumors I’ve heard is [it may arrive] any day now,” Chris Ballance, co-founder of U.K. quantum computing startup Oxford Ionics, told CNBC. However, he added the process had been “going on for the last four or five months.”
Given we have Brexited, and given the consequent disinvestment in the UK, what are the best/least bad bets for the UK at this point, for our niche industries?
I don't think there is a straightforward answer to that, since rather a lot now depends on government policy (in a way it didn't pre-Brexit). At present, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of coherent policy.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
That's a decent analysis, but I think you underestimate the local politics around pandering to Nimbies, and consistency of policy. That also needs fixing.
For me, the Planning Officers and the Planning Inspectorate are about the only elements that keep the system sane, since local pols would rather ignore the law in pursuit of local politics. That also needs to be in the system.
I started developments in an ideal area a decade ago, with a 100 dwelling estate in an area which would eventually have potential for around 400 or so properties. The Nimbies who crawled out of the woodwork were astonishing, as were their demands that they should have a right to preserve "their view", a sudden interest in wildlife, and the full panoply of usual garbage.
The recommendation from the Planning Officers was yes, yet a certain politician by the name of Zadrozny leafleted 300+ houses 2-3 days before the (the Lib Dem 'find a mob and lead it' principle), and the planning committee voted "no", which meant that the local authority would be bearing the cost of a 90% probable loss Appeal as a means of avoiding responsibility.
One of the improvements paid for by my development was an improvement of the footway on 200m of the road to be a shared pedestrian / cycleway by increasing the width. This being a 10k vehicles a day road, with plenty of space in the highway land corridor (despite the peeps having decided it was "part of MY GARDEN outside my fence").
When the developments either side came up 5-6 years later, the District Council forgot to apply the same requirement, so there is now 200m of decent footway / cycleway, with as little as 1.2m on the sections either side. Idiots.
They also have not shown enough imagination to ensure cycling paths off the main road to the local primary school, which is adjacent to one end of the developments.
There are certainly issues about ensuring quality - on one of these further developments density has been increased post-Outline-Permission by removing garages, making the drives tandem drives, and using the space for more houses. So there the householders will be lazy and will all park one car on the pavement, making life miserable for older people with mobility scooters or mums with pushchairs.
A complex issue, needing both carrot and stick (the necessary stick being housing targets).
An important question is whether Local Authorities are sane enough to have more control, and how we can make them so, or whether we need better national standards for various aspects. As we perhaps need constraints on lowering of development quality in pursuit of minimum cost.
In our case, my development was rushed through in the gap between Local Plans in 2012/13. I think they still haven't got one.
I can believe all that - but unfortunately, the local pols sound to be merely responding rationally. If you do it the other way (the right way), you get fucked over. You end up telling people that we can get house prices under more control, provide houses for their kids to get on the ladder, control where the development goes, and get them to give you the benefit of the doubt... and then they end up getting none of that and merely seeing developers take the utter piss.
We had one try to get around any environmental requirements by tearing down all the trees, filling in a large old pond, and burning refuse on site before making their application (for several four and five bedroomed houses outside of the Neighbourhood Plan area, of course, and without any affordable housing).
Which ended up approved. Of course.
So, people continue getting more and more pissed off and ignored.
Anyway, in the pursuit of light rather than heat, a fairly balanced look at this hot mess in Scotland. Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
The far right in Ireland are now suddenly very concerned with the plight of the homeless as part of their campaign against refugees. Does that mean I should stop complaining about the Irish government's failure to tackle homelessness?
No - but in general if almost every member of a very nasty group of people support a cause you also support it's surely worth considering why. Might not - probably won't - change your views but every so often it might. Or at least bring a wider perspective. Either way, better than just saying "I have my take on XYZ and it's utterly irrelevant to me who agrees or disagrees". There's a notion this indicates integrity and strength of mind. It doesn't imo. What it more indicates to me is a certain mule-headed arrogance.
Not talking about you or the trans issue in particular here btw, very much not, this is a generic point I'm making - given you genericized it with the homelessness in Ireland comparison.
Sure, and to generalise it further, I sometimes do a double-take when I see who has liked a particular comment of mine. As I've said upthread, it's worth taking time, sometimes, to reflect on your opinion.
But the point I was making was that the far right will latch onto any issue, worthy or unworthy, if they think it will advance their cause. it's a very fallible heuristic to use to govern your opinions.
Fair enough. However I'd say very few causes are both worthy and advance the interests of the far right.
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?
I don't know if you've ever read The Stand by Steven King. It was written in 1978, and there's a character called Harold Lauder who was an incel long before incels were a thing. They've probably always existed, but social media lets them communicate with each other. You can, without much difficulty, find websites dedicated to tales, and mocked up photos, of the rape, torture, and murder of attractive young women.
I think it's a feature, not a bug, of social media that it generates hate, which in turn, generates traffic.
The Andrew Tates are the obvious problem that has to be dealt with. The more insidious problem is that of self-righteous misogyny. People who would view themselves as progressive, but who have no issue posting death and rape threats to people like JK Rowling. Or men who act behave like Lloyd Russell-Moyle. Extreme left groups have always been as riddled with misogyny as anti-semitism.
And, the third problem is people in positions of power, in both the private and public sectors, who turn a blind eye to these things because they just want a quiet life, at best, or despise the victims, at worst.
I viewed a pretty "woke" CEO treat a woman differently on Friday - interrupting her presentation and then shooing her off the stage when she'd finished, even though her presentation was rather good - whilst letting a rather boring man drone on earlier for 42 minutes (I timed it) without saying a word.
It irritated me to the extent I approached her after to say her presentation was the best, and then ranted to my wife about it when I got home.
I don't want identity politics and to be told how no-one cares what middle aged white men think (funnily enough this never seems to include them) but just have everyone treated with respect.
Comments
There are few identified trans women anyway; per experience of other countries, the process change for identification won't increase that number massively. Trans women overwhelmingly don't sexually abuse other women. We are talking about risks introduced by GIRB in the order of 1 in million, maybe much less. Meanwhile men sexually attacking women; men attacking men and women attacking women are massively bigger issues.
I think it's a feature, not a bug, of social media that it generates hate, which in turn, generates traffic.
The Andrew Tates are the obvious problem that has to be dealt with. The more insidious problem is that of self-righteous misogyny. People who would view themselves as progressive, but who have no issue posting death and rape threats to people like JK Rowling. Or men who act behave like Lloyd Russell-Moyle. Extreme left groups have always been as riddled with misogyny as anti-semitism.
And, the third problem is people in positions of power, in both the private and public sectors, who turn a blind eye to these things because they just want a quiet life, at best, or despise the victims, at worst.
And in some ways I still agree with you. The endless pb arguments generate far more heat than light
However it is untrue to say it impacts very few people. It is only people without kids or with much older kids - generally older people - you and roger on this site today - who express that opinion
Anyone with kids in a big city in the UK/USA will have personally encountered the mad ideology that drives this issue and seen how dangerous and insidious it is (or how necessary and praiseworthy)
It is a huge subject on Mumsnet for a reason. It is also monumentally dull and/or entrenched
For me, the Planning Officers and the Planning Inspectorate are about the only elements that keep the system sane, since local pols would rather ignore the law in pursuit of local politics. That also needs to be in the system.
I started developments in an ideal area a decade ago, with a 100 dwelling estate in an area which would eventually have potential for around 400 or so properties. The Nimbies who crawled out of the woodwork were astonishing, as were their demands that they should have a right to preserve "their view", a sudden interest in wildlife, and the full panoply of usual garbage.
The recommendation from the Planning Officers was yes, yet a certain politician by the name of Zadrozny leafleted 300+ houses 2-3 days before the (the Lib Dem 'find a mob and lead it' principle), and the planning committee voted "no", which meant that the local authority would be bearing the cost of a 90% probable loss Appeal as a means of avoiding responsibility.
One of the improvements paid for by my development was an improvement of the footway on 200m of the road to be a shared pedestrian / cycleway by increasing the width. This being a 10k vehicles a day road, with plenty of space in the highway land corridor (despite the peeps having decided it was "part of MY GARDEN outside my fence").
When the developments either side came up 5-6 years later, the District Council forgot to apply the same requirement, so there is now 200m of decent footway / cycleway, with as little as 1.2m on the sections either side. Idiots.
They also have not shown enough imagination to ensure cycling paths off the main road to the local primary school, which is adjacent to one end of the developments.
There are certainly issues about ensuring quality - on one of these further developments density has been increased post-Outline-Permission by removing garages, making the drives tandem drives, and using the space for more houses. So there the householders will be lazy and will all park one car on the pavement, making life miserable for older people with mobility scooters or mums with pushchairs.
A complex issue, needing both carrot and stick (the necessary stick being housing targets).
An important question is whether Local Authorities are sane enough to have more control, and how we can make them so, or whether we need better national standards for various aspects. As we perhaps need constraints on lowering of development quality in pursuit of minimum cost.
In our case, my development was rushed through in the gap between Local Plans in 2012/13. I think they still haven't got one.
As always, take that with a boulder of salt. Headline times will be largely meaningless. However, the test can be useful for assessing serious problems. You can hide pace easily with compounds, engine modes, fuel loads. Hiding the fact your engine explodes every three laps is trickier.
Maybe have a quiet word
Making that process easier could prevent, for example, this indignity in death:
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1625073880107819008?s=20&t=02eKExYQzwRb6HAmRio2yg
Either a terrestrial adversary is presumably way further ahead than what has been previously understood, or current terrestrial science can't cover it. Both of these are important possibilties.
"The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity"
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime
So your example doesn't work.
I think we need to recognise hate crimes, so we can treat hate crimes differently when needed. For example, if someone reports that someone has tagged their initials on the wall of their house, should this be treated the same as a Jewish person reporting that someone has sprayed a swastika on their house?
I went round a local senior school recently. Of the display material on walls and in corridors etc, a good 40% plus was on LBGTQIA+. A further 20% was on race, and another 20% on the environment, with the remaining 20% devoted to either administrative or academic matters.
My guess is that the number of kids who would genuinely benefit from being able to live openly as the opposite sex who benefit from this approach is far smaller than the number of gay kids, girls who are horrified by their suddenly womanly bodies, and kids with other issues who are needlessly pushed down this route.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1192187159324844032?s=46&t=rVPxYSz8PvNhHDCKW_rS9w
Expect to see many more of these constituency level polls in the coming months, probably commissioned by the LDs.
*sarcasm
Speaking of which, why hasn't the Pentagon published any photographs of the UFOs? I mean those objects they've described as being a lot smaller than the Chinese balloon they shot down off of North Carolina.
When they eventually publish some, they're likely to be memorable ones composed in a Poussin-Spielberg style - regardless of whether they show the objects cruising in the sky by unknown means of propulsion or being recovered, damaged, from ice or lake.
And, if there is anyone who knows for sure how well it will be doing, they ought to share that knowledge with us.
After that, his chances depend more on foreign policy successes than anything else. And he has had some.
(This article from Gallup shows how much variance in partisanship you can have, even in a single year: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx
Please note the growth in independents in recent years, which makes even bigger swings more likely.)
Full disclosure: In 2016 and 2020 I cast write-in votes for Mitt Romney in the presidential race. (In 2016, I advised people to vote for Trump if social issues were most important to them, for Clinton if foreign policy was, and for the Libertarian, if economic policy was.)
That may have implications for global power and security, from whichever angle it's looked at.
Perhaps all the fine upstanding GC folk of good faith who only want the best for trans people could comment on why the far right are so attracted to your cause? I'd genuinely like to hear your view. I mean there’s only one genuinely far right person on here* getting on the bandwagon but symptomatic of the wider issue.
*subject to revision
'David Leask: The far right are hijacking Scotland’s trans rights row'
https://tinyurl.com/mwcx4r43
https://unherd.com/2023/02/the-red-wall-firebrand-is-a-myth/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=7fa205fabe&mc_eid=12cf4fd1d6
It's rather better than you'd expect on the drivelpipe - hence the outrage below the line from the revolving bow tie reactionary frothers.
On a wider level it is interesting as it is associated with the power of the left to facilitate societal change through its dominance of culture.
If you want to wish everyone well and let them get on with their lives, then unfortunately you need to engage with this, because upon examination it becomes clear that some of the ideology behind a lot of this stuff is fundamentally extremely intolerant.
I do think this is one area where the right seem to be making some progress in the US, Trump has certainly caught on to it and thinks it is a vote winner. If he does win in 2024 and this is a factor, it will the fault of the liberals for accepting too much of the agenda uncritically. It looks like the SNP made a major error on this front, for similar reasons.
So, yes.
Let's roll back women's rights because some women are child abusers.
This debate is absurd.
From my fuzzy memory of learning about it in university.
In a just society he'd be breaking rocks in a penal colony on South Thule.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of the 15 are blokes who have cracked up mentally and decided they want to be girlies in response to either being abused in prison for being gay or being sexually abused by other prisoners or both. Others are probably the product of clinicians trying to meet quotas.
“Scottish nationalists tried to forge Nazi alliance”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/may/09/highereducation.humanities?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Labour - 49% (-2)
Lib Dem - 5% (+1)
Plaid Cymru - 14% (+1)
Reform UK - 9% (+1)
Green - 3% (-1)
Other - 1% (-1)
Wales VI
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2023-02-12/rishi-sunak-fails-to-win-back-conservative-support-in-wales-poll-reveals
'The Minnesota supreme court building in St Paul. In a state where political control is split between Republicans and Democrats, the court has become a forum for final decisions'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/13/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-gerrymandered-democracy
SwedishScottish idiot.To pay for our excess consumption of imported consumer tat and foreign holidays the UK has to steadily sell its assets.
Leading to the income from them - whether that is rents on housing, interest on government borrowings or profits from businesses - moving from this country to its foreign owners.
This is 6000 years before Sumeria….
He would very likely beat Trump again.
But a much lower chance against DeSantis.
Whether Trump could bear someone else beating the man who beat him is doubtful.
How does that feel? Make you feel like a peon? A colonial peasant? EVER GET THE FEELING YOU’VE BEEN HAD?
Not talking about you or the trans issue in particular here btw, very much not, this is a generic point I'm making - given you genericized it with the homelessness in Ireland comparison.
A few trans rights activists are determined to portray all critics of GRR as being hard right. This is spectacularly unfair.
The standard Cold War Pentagon modus operandi was to pretend that it understood each and every one of these sightings, and it was all wrapped up and sorted out, for reasons of domestic and global prestige , and reassurance.
Now having followed the pattern of the last two years, of having been more open with information, they'll have to deal with follow-up interest.
The media isn't going to just "forget" that they've both stressed the unknown origin of the objects , so far, and that they've said that they've engaged them ; they will keep asking questions of what has been made of the debris and invrestigated of it, for instance. And similiarly the political class will also get their oar in, as Rubio has today, drawing attention to previously declassified reports shown to Congressmen , from last year I think it was , now .
LETTER FROM IOWA
The ‘CEO of Anti-Woke Inc.’ Has His Eye on the Presidency
Vivek Ramaswamy leaves the boardroom for a barn in Iowa to test out his businessman-turned-culture-warrior brand on rural conservative voters.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/13/anti-woke-ramaswamy-2024-election-00082414
Introduce the GIRB without any safeguarding and that number could very quickly rise as more of the ~700 decide that they want to be housed with women instead of men.
That's why there's a need for safeguarding. Introduce proper safeguarding and the safeguarding applies to the 15, do away with safeguarding and it applies to as many of the 700 who choose to have it apply to them.
What part of that are you struggling to comprehend? 🤦♂️
Are you really telling me that you didn't intend the reader to infer "which we should be talking about instead"?
I would also say it would be worth putting more effort into reducing men on women; men on men and women on women and men violence because the scale is much larger. But that's prioritisation, not whataboutery.
Ditto attempts to smear anybody who supports the reform as a "Destroyer of Women's Rights".
Try and get everyone to vote for their own private dream, even if they are incompatible, and hope to sort out the details later.
And hope nobody notices what a shit idea it was in the first place
One result? We have ended up in the absurd situation of some anti-GRR voices deciding that it is a slur – rather than an empirical observation – to say that far-right activists support their cause.
As her own stance unravelled last month, Nicola Sturgeon provoked outrage when she said some but not all GRR opponents were transphobes and racists.
The First Minister was accused of deflection. But she he was also right: some of those rallying against trans laws do hold chauvinistic views, as a cursory scroll through social media would demonstrate.
Ms Sturgeon’s words were then misrepresented. She had smeared, internet activists said, the entire gender critical movement as bigots. I think this falsification gave a free pass to proper fascists.
https://archive.md/A6980 (The Economist)
I would always minimise risk if it can be done at low cost.
Seems like there is a perfect storm of push and pull factors. To get to work is too bloody expensive - commuting and childcare costs are off the scale stupid compared to so many of our neighbouring competitors. And once you are there so much work is now low pay, low opportunity, poor conditions.
Tories used to campaign on "make work pay" and have failed miserably. Cutting welfare payments doesn't suddenly make that job which doesn't pay enough viable. We have employers who make large profits and receive vast subsidies - all the supermarkets as one example.
So what can we do about it? Investment into childcare is a starter for 10. It is pointless / impossible for many working aged mums to go back to the job they had. We have to fix that - much better maternity pay (driven via tax incentives to employers) and nursery providers who aren't doing minimal cost to charge maximum profits.
British semiconductor bosses threaten to move overseas as U.S. and EU splurge on chips
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/13/uk-semiconductor-strategy-chip-firms-threaten-to-move-overseas.html
...In the U.S., President Joe Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act, a $280 billion package that includes $52 billion of funding to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
The EU, meanwhile, has earmarked 43 billion euros ($45.9 billion) for Europe’s semiconductor industry with the aim of producing 20% of the world’s semiconductors by 2030...
...The U.K. won’t have the kind of financial firepower to match those bold spending packages, they say. However, they’re hopeful the country will commit to investment in the several millions, tax incentives, and an easier immigration process for high-skilled workers...
...A U.K. semiconductor strategy was expected to come out last year. But it has faced a series of delays due to political instability. The government previously suggested establishing a national institution, among other initiatives, to boost its semiconductor industry.
“The rumors I’ve heard is [it may arrive] any day now,” Chris Ballance, co-founder of U.K. quantum computing startup Oxford Ionics, told CNBC. However, he added the process had been “going on for the last four or five months.”
But the point I was making was that the far right will latch onto any issue, worthy or unworthy, if they think it will advance their cause. it's a very fallible heuristic to use to govern your opinions.
There is a global trade war brewing between the US, the EU and China.
And we are on the outside with our noses pressed against the window while decisions are made that will affect our future.
If only someone had predicted this outcome.
Oh, wait...
The revolution continues to devour its young...
At present, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of coherent policy.
Perhaps Badenoch will surprise us...
If you do it the other way (the right way), you get fucked over. You end up telling people that we can get house prices under more control, provide houses for their kids to get on the ladder, control where the development goes, and get them to give you the benefit of the doubt... and then they end up getting none of that and merely seeing developers take the utter piss.
We had one try to get around any environmental requirements by tearing down all the trees, filling in a large old pond, and burning refuse on site before making their application (for several four and five bedroomed houses outside of the Neighbourhood Plan area, of course, and without any affordable housing).
Which ended up approved. Of course.
So, people continue getting more and more pissed off and ignored.
It irritated me to the extent I approached her after to say her presentation was the best, and then ranted to my wife about it when I got home.
I don't want identity politics and to be told how no-one cares what middle aged white men think (funnily enough this never seems to include them) but just have everyone treated with respect.