Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
At one time people thought that lobotomising women also represental societal progress. That's a better parallel with the kind of surgeries being promoted by the medical industry here.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
Of those who voted "Yes" to independence in 2014, the number currently having a favourable opinion of Yousless is just 2% more than those with an unfavourable opinion of him.
For Sturgeon, the equivalent net figure is +55%.
Looks like First Minister Sarwar then after the next Holyrood election
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
The step between you and Stalin is but a short one!
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
This is qualitatively different, though. Previous reforms, as kamski suggested upthread, didn't affect the rights of other "oppressed" groups. This one does.
Previous reforms were sometimes (incorrectly) feared to threaten other people and the same is true here. The GRR (a similar reform to that enacted successfully in several other countries and one which Mrs May wanted to do here in 2016) made the process of obtaining a GRC easier. That's all. No change to what possession of a GRC allows you to do. No change to the provisions of the Equality Act. Prisons, Refuges, Sports, are all free to set policy and safeguarding as deemed appropriate. True before the GRR, true after the GRR. There's a lot of misunderstanding and hypberbole around the bill.
Not talking about the Scottish GRR bill in particular, but rather the wider trans rights movement.
You're quite right that previous reforms were sometimes feared to threaten other groups - but always "oppressor" groups. This is different - "women" has moved from an "oppressed" group to an "oppressor" group so it's no surprise it's causing problems.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
Jusr remember how PB Wokefinders went berserk about some hospital in Washington DC purportedly handing out trans ops to children of young age. Turned out to be confected bollocks based on wilful and malicious misrepresentation of the hospital's website and bullying a junior employee into giving out duff gen. But it sure whipped up hysreria on here.
Of those who voted "Yes" to independence in 2014, the number currently having a favourable opinion of Yousless is just 2% more than those with an unfavourable opinion of him.
For Sturgeon, the equivalent net figure is +55%.
Looks like First Minister Sarwar then after the next Holyrood election
Moves seamlessly from the Scotch Ann Widdecomb repelling voters to woke Useless repelling them. Quite remarkable.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
The step between you and Stalin is but a short one!
Stalin of course tried to stamp out religious worship and freedoms in the USSR so the reverse if anything
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
Well, it certainly doesn't look as though Youssaf will be troubling the scorers much. He'll go to court, with only a remote chance of success, over an issue that is unpopular with his electorate.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
At one time people thought that lobotomising women also represental societal progress. That's a better parallel with the kind of surgeries being promoted by the medical industry here.
Yes there have been steps and missteps. But you have to grant agency to the people concerned.
I note - google - that in 2021 in the US (first google result) there were 1,390 children between 6-17yrs who initiated puberty blocker treatment.
I have no idea how many 6-17yr olds there are in the US but that doesn't sound like a lot.
As I said societal norms change. We seem to be in one of those phases now. Is ever person undergoing gender reassignment surgery going to be happy ever after? I'm absolutely sure not. Is ever child between 6-17yrs receiving puberty blocking drugs going to live regret-free? Also sure not.
But formulating policy on (in this case, in the US) a tiny number of edge cases is not the way forward either.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
The step between you and Stalin is but a short one!
Stalin of course tried to stamp out religious worship, and freedoms>
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Meanwhile the funding cuts to councils by Holyrood continues to bite. Aberdeenshire are cutting funding to a stack of bus routes. Which essentially means that the bulk of the dozen or so buses we get a day are getting scrapped. Joy!
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
What about a soldier, who dies to save a hundred compatriots?
Still a failure as they died but a success in legacy in terms of the soldiers they saved
We're all going to die (other than kle4 obviously)
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
But the critique of Merkel comes from her own party as much as her opponents
"Why is Germany now brutally re-evaluating Angela Merkel’s legacy?"
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Yes, that's exactly right. And very eloquently phrased
Some people on PB seem to be in wilful denial, or plain ignorance, of all this
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Neither of those options are likely to succeed imo. The 1st is pretty much the current approach but with more downside risk. The 2nd requires magical thinking.
Governing Scotland well and making Scotland prosperous requires magical thinking?
No, the magical thinking aspect is twofold; that (i) any single SNP politician (even the uber mega incredible Kate Forbes!) could have such an impact in just a few years and (ii) that if they could, which they couldn't, it would cause people to flock to the Sindy cause.
You may be right - though if you are, that's quite a depressing truth for politicians to take on ("It'll take at least a decade for you to make any sort of difference, and even if you manage it no-one will thank you"). No wonder they obsess about stuff like GRA.
I am slightly more optimistic - I think good government is both possible and rewarded. Though with the obvious caveat about not being able to please everyone. If THE MAGICAL KATE FORBES is truly as magical as we are all hoping a blank slate might be, I reckon she could do it within 6 years. Of course, there's always the possibility that we are simply projecting our hopes for good government onto someone on the basis that in contrast to her chief rival there is a mildly reassuring lack of evidence, yet, that she wouldn't be terrible.
Hang on, nuance alert.
Can any particular FM make a positive difference to Scotland? Yep.
Can any particular FM transform the Scottish economy relative to England in a few years? No. Not without recourse to magic.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Six months after taking on the transport portfolio, Mr Yousaf faced the embarrassment of being fined £300 and having six penalty points added to his licence after being stopped by the police while driving his friend's car without the proper insurance.
Another dodgy driver?
We already have 1 UK Govt Minister with a recent ban, another one about to get one in all probability, at least one Welsh Govt Minister with a recent ban, Andy Burnham getting a slapped wrist for 78mph in a 40 limit last week, and the Notts Police & Complaints Commissioner with her 5 speeding offences in 4 months.
Is there no end to it?
Is car insurance available on expenses?
No wonder it's all slopey-shoulders on pavement parking.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
Well, my son was of the relevant age, about 14/15, when the "Homosexual agenda", as you would no doubt put it, was under challenge from section 28 etc. My son put it like this - "we learn about Buddhism in RE - doesn't mean I'm going to become a Buddhist".
Of those who voted "Yes" to independence in 2014, the number currently having a favourable opinion of Yousless is just 2% more than those with an unfavourable opinion of him.
For Sturgeon, the equivalent net figure is +55%.
Looks like First Minister Sarwar then after the next Holyrood election
The IPSOS figures below seem to me to be the clincher for exposing just what a mistake the SNP members have made. If she had gone on to play her cards carefully, there was a chance that Forbes could have had some success in future in appealing to a minority of past Labour and Conservative supporters. There is absolutely no chance that Yousuf can do that. Opinion is already set hard against him.
Labour 2021 voters - Net favourability: Sturgeon -33% Forbes -16% Yousuf -40%
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
This is qualitatively different, though. Previous reforms, as kamski suggested upthread, didn't affect the rights of other "oppressed" groups. This one does.
Previous reforms were sometimes (incorrectly) feared to threaten other people and the same is true here. The GRR (a similar reform to that enacted successfully in several other countries and one which Mrs May wanted to do here in 2016) made the process of obtaining a GRC easier. That's all. No change to what possession of a GRC allows you to do. No change to the provisions of the Equality Act. Prisons, Refuges, Sports, are all free to set policy and safeguarding as deemed appropriate. True before the GRR, true after the GRR. There's a lot of misunderstanding and hypberbole around the bill.
Not talking about the Scottish GRR bill in particular, but rather the wider trans rights movement.
You're quite right that previous reforms were sometimes feared to threaten other groups - but always "oppressor" groups. This is different - "women" has moved from an "oppressed" group to an "oppressor" group so it's no surprise it's causing problems.
I think many "trans activists", like eco-activists are overwhelmingly misguided.
Coming to JK Rowling (remember I am an expert on this now, having listened to the podcast), it seems that saying a woman has a cervix is "anti-trans". Now, I can understand that there is a belief amongst some people that certain elements should be beyond debate, gender being one of them. And at the fundamental level I see why people believe that. I also understand the view which says that no one can be a woman unless they are born with 2X chromosomes.
However, given the state of flux of gender ID I think it absolutely right that these issues should be discussed and for me that trumps the "no debate" standpoint held by some trans advocates.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
At one time people thought that lobotomising women also represental societal progress. That's a better parallel with the kind of surgeries being promoted by the medical industry here.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
Well, my son was of the relevant age, about 14/15, when the "Homosexual agenda", as you would no doubt put it, was under challenge from section 28 etc. My son put it like this - "we learn about Buddhism in RE - doesn't mean I'm going to become a Buddhist".
But if he had become a Buddhist, or indeed decided he was gay, it wouldn't have required a serious and life-altering medical intervention to make it so. He could have changed his mind later. Many did.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
"pro-trans"
I'm not sure that clears the bar of a "trans agenda forced upon pupils".
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Amen.
Children go through phases.(*) Waiting until adulthood to make sure that there isn't a misdiagnosis is surely understandable.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
This is qualitatively different, though. Previous reforms, as kamski suggested upthread, didn't affect the rights of other "oppressed" groups. This one does.
Previous reforms were sometimes (incorrectly) feared to threaten other people and the same is true here. The GRR (a similar reform to that enacted successfully in several other countries and one which Mrs May wanted to do here in 2016) made the process of obtaining a GRC easier. That's all. No change to what possession of a GRC allows you to do. No change to the provisions of the Equality Act. Prisons, Refuges, Sports, are all free to set policy and safeguarding as deemed appropriate. True before the GRR, true after the GRR. There's a lot of misunderstanding and hypberbole around the bill.
Not talking about the Scottish GRR bill in particular, but rather the wider trans rights movement.
You're quite right that previous reforms were sometimes feared to threaten other groups - but always "oppressor" groups. This is different - "women" has moved from an "oppressed" group to an "oppressor" group so it's no surprise it's causing problems.
I think many "trans activists", like eco-activists are overwhelmingly misguided.
Coming to JK Rowling (remember I am an expert on this now, having listened to the podcast), it seems that saying a woman has a cervix is "anti-trans". Now, I can understand that there is a belief amongst some people that certain elements should be beyond debate, gender being one of them. And at the fundamental level I see why people believe that. I also understand the view which says that no one can be a woman unless they are born with 2X chromosomes.
However, given the state of flux of gender ID I think it absolutely right that these issues should be discussed and for me that trumps the "no debate" standpoint held by some trans advocates.
There is nothing more likely to make me take a side on an issue than the other side arguing for "no debate".
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
That is true although curiously the Church of Wales decided to volunteer itself to be treated like the CoE.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Neither of those options are likely to succeed imo. The 1st is pretty much the current approach but with more downside risk. The 2nd requires magical thinking.
Governing Scotland well and making Scotland prosperous requires magical thinking?
No, the magical thinking aspect is twofold; that (i) any single SNP politician (even the uber mega incredible Kate Forbes!) could have such an impact in just a few years and (ii) that if they could, which they couldn't, it would cause people to flock to the Sindy cause.
You may be right - though if you are, that's quite a depressing truth for politicians to take on ("It'll take at least a decade for you to make any sort of difference, and even if you manage it no-one will thank you"). No wonder they obsess about stuff like GRA.
I am slightly more optimistic - I think good government is both possible and rewarded. Though with the obvious caveat about not being able to please everyone. If THE MAGICAL KATE FORBES is truly as magical as we are all hoping a blank slate might be, I reckon she could do it within 6 years. Of course, there's always the possibility that we are simply projecting our hopes for good government onto someone on the basis that in contrast to her chief rival there is a mildly reassuring lack of evidence, yet, that she wouldn't be terrible.
Hang on, nuance alert.
Can any particular FM make a positive difference to Scotland? Yep.
Can any particular FM transform the Scottish economy relative to England in a few years? No. Not without recourse to magic.
One wonders if this transformation of the Scottish economy was such a goer why those who've had control of the economic levers for the last 316 years haven't managed it. Of course if some Rowling-esque economy transforming spell was discovered, the bar would then be raised to world peace.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
You have to be an adult to have the surgery.
(also, nothing to do with the GRR)
You don't have to be an adult to be given the drugs.
SGs agree not to throw their toys out of the pram.
Does look as if Mr Yousaf will be FM, barring something really unexpected.
As was predictable...
Not at all. Look how closely he came to losing.
Well, specifically that the new SNP leader would become the new FM.
The SGs would not have agreed to Ms Forbes, and that would have thrown things up in the air. Still probably FM, but no certainty at all. We discussed this on PB last night, as it happens.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
This is qualitatively different, though. Previous reforms, as kamski suggested upthread, didn't affect the rights of other "oppressed" groups. This one does.
Previous reforms were sometimes (incorrectly) feared to threaten other people and the same is true here. The GRR (a similar reform to that enacted successfully in several other countries and one which Mrs May wanted to do here in 2016) made the process of obtaining a GRC easier. That's all. No change to what possession of a GRC allows you to do. No change to the provisions of the Equality Act. Prisons, Refuges, Sports, are all free to set policy and safeguarding as deemed appropriate. True before the GRR, true after the GRR. There's a lot of misunderstanding and hypberbole around the bill.
Not talking about the Scottish GRR bill in particular, but rather the wider trans rights movement.
You're quite right that previous reforms were sometimes feared to threaten other groups - but always "oppressor" groups. This is different - "women" has moved from an "oppressed" group to an "oppressor" group so it's no surprise it's causing problems.
I think many "trans activists", like eco-activists are overwhelmingly misguided.
Coming to JK Rowling (remember I am an expert on this now, having listened to the podcast), it seems that saying a woman has a cervix is "anti-trans". Now, I can understand that there is a belief amongst some people that certain elements should be beyond debate, gender being one of them. And at the fundamental level I see why people believe that. I also understand the view which says that no one can be a woman unless they are born with 2X chromosomes.
However, given the state of flux of gender ID I think it absolutely right that these issues should be discussed and for me that trumps the "no debate" standpoint held by some trans advocates.
There is nothing more likely to make me take a side on an issue than the other side arguing for "no debate".
I think that is true. Or rather, I agree. But it is important also to recognise that people believe that their very essence (their identity) is being debated and hence the "no debate" stance.
I understand it but the trans issue is not mature enough for there to be no debate although ultimately debate is futile, like Richard Dawkins debating the Archbishop of Canterbury about the existence of god.
The government is charged with drawing the appropriate line and who would possibly envy them.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
And don't people need to live as whatever for 2 years before they can get a GRC, or do I misunderstand?
Labour leads by 19%, the first time in 2023 that Labour has led by less than 20%.
Westminster VI (26 March):
Labour 46% (-1) Conservative 27% (+1) Liberal Democrat 10% (-1) Reform UK 8% (+3) Green 4% (-2) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 19 March
ReFUK +3% isn't good news for the Tories. Though it is MoE.
Might be MoE, of course. After all, it might all be MoE. Though the balance of zigs and zags is working towards the Conservatives right now, and Labour will get twitchy if it continues.
But the risk of raising Boats as an isssue was that it reminded people of RefUK's existence and purpose.
And remember kids, the October 1995 ICM (as a rough proxy for 18 months before the general election) was Labour 47, Conservative 30, Lib Dem 19.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
You have to be an adult to have the surgery.
(also, nothing to do with the GRR)
You don't have to be an adult to be given the drugs.
Nor do you have to be an adult to have other treatments - eg clothes that suppress the growth of breasts, etc. This can start age 13 or maybe even earlier
"Chest Binding Helps Smooth the Way for Transgender Teens, but There May Be Risks People who use binders report symptoms like back and chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath.
"It used to be that when a 13-year-old wanted a binder for school, it meant a trip to Staples. For today’s tweens and teens who identify as gender-nonconforming or transgender, shopping for a binder may mean a compression undergarment worn to flatten breasts."
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
Well, my son was of the relevant age, about 14/15, when the "Homosexual agenda", as you would no doubt put it, was under challenge from section 28 etc. My son put it like this - "we learn about Buddhism in RE - doesn't mean I'm going to become a Buddhist".
But if he had become a Buddhist, or indeed decided he was gay, it wouldn't have required a serious and life-altering medical intervention to make it so. He could have changed his mind later. Many did.
Yes. This is why much more care and thought has to be put into any medical intervention.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
You have to be an adult to have the surgery.
(also, nothing to do with the GRR)
You don't have to be an adult to be given the drugs.
Nor do you have to be an adult to have other treatments - eg clothes that suppress the growth of breasts, etc. This can start age 13 or maybe even earlier
"Chest Binding Helps Smooth the Way for Transgender Teens, but There May Be Risks People who use binders report symptoms like back and chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath.
"It used to be that when a 13-year-old wanted a binder for school, it meant a trip to Staples. For today’s tweens and teens who identify as gender-nonconforming or transgender, shopping for a binder may mean a compression undergarment worn to flatten breasts."
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Wrong, the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland doesn't even bless homosexual couples like the Church of England does let alone marry them. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church in the UK
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
This is qualitatively different, though. Previous reforms, as kamski suggested upthread, didn't affect the rights of other "oppressed" groups. This one does.
Previous reforms were sometimes (incorrectly) feared to threaten other people and the same is true here. The GRR (a similar reform to that enacted successfully in several other countries and one which Mrs May wanted to do here in 2016) made the process of obtaining a GRC easier. That's all. No change to what possession of a GRC allows you to do. No change to the provisions of the Equality Act. Prisons, Refuges, Sports, are all free to set policy and safeguarding as deemed appropriate. True before the GRR, true after the GRR. There's a lot of misunderstanding and hypberbole around the bill.
Not talking about the Scottish GRR bill in particular, but rather the wider trans rights movement.
You're quite right that previous reforms were sometimes feared to threaten other groups - but always "oppressor" groups. This is different - "women" has moved from an "oppressed" group to an "oppressor" group so it's no surprise it's causing problems.
Ah well I'm talking about the bill. GRR. As I say, it's got conflated with lots of things that have nothing to do with it. Rather a tragedy really. Probably take years now to get back to where we were with this modest humane sensible reform that will help trans people and hurt nobody else.
Six months after taking on the transport portfolio, Mr Yousaf faced the embarrassment of being fined £300 and having six penalty points added to his licence after being stopped by the police while driving his friend's car without the proper insurance.
Another dodgy driver?
We already have 1 UK Govt Minister with a recent ban, another one about to get one in all probability, at least one Welsh Govt Minister with a recent ban, Andy Burnham getting a slapped wrist for 78mph in a 40 limit last week, and the Notts Police & Complaints Commissioner with her 5 speeding offences in 4 months.
Is there no end to it?
Is car insurance available on expenses?
No wonder it's all slopey-shoulders on pavement parking.
Mr Burnham said he was "not aware of any variable speed limit in place on the smart motorway at the time" and only found out about it when the letter notifying him arrived in the post.
Oh yeah, whatever. What he means is, it was late at night and he assumed the limits had been left on from earlier in the day (which, to be fair, would probably be about right).
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
I agree. I think liberals of ahem a certain age just take a reflexively liberal position on any issue which is of course easy to do if you dont have kids at school and are in a nice paid off home.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
You have to be an adult to have the surgery.
(also, nothing to do with the GRR)
You don't have to be an adult to be given the drugs.
Nor do you have to be an adult to have other treatments - eg clothes that suppress the growth of breasts, etc. This can start age 13 or maybe even earlier
"Chest Binding Helps Smooth the Way for Transgender Teens, but There May Be Risks People who use binders report symptoms like back and chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath.
"It used to be that when a 13-year-old wanted a binder for school, it meant a trip to Staples. For today’s tweens and teens who identify as gender-nonconforming or transgender, shopping for a binder may mean a compression undergarment worn to flatten breasts."
This happened to a friend's child, in London, so it's not just an American thing
"There May Be Risks" - well, whodathunkit?
Yeah, amazing, right?
And of course once you start on this then confirmation bias, and the difficulty of admitting doubt - allied to the pressure from the genderfluid lobby - means you are likely to go further. From the same article:
"Dr. Steever said most of his patients who use binders “then tell me the next things they want to do, like testosterone, mastectomy and maybe phalloplasty. Ninety-five percent of the people I’ve evaluated get started on cross-hormones.” (Cross-gender hormone treatment in young people may affect future fertility, but data is limited.)"
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
I agree. I think liberals of ahem a certain age just take a reflexively liberal position on any issue which is of course easy to do if you dont have kids at school and are in a nice paid off home.
I think your state of home ownership is a critical factor in your views on gender self ID.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
And don't people need to live as whatever for 2 years before they can get a GRC, or do I misunderstand?
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Just as the Church of England formally does not remarry divorcees either only blesses them unless on grounds of spousal adultery
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
You have to be an adult to have the surgery.
(also, nothing to do with the GRR)
You don't have to be an adult to be given the drugs.
Nor do you have to be an adult to have other treatments - eg clothes that suppress the growth of breasts, etc. This can start age 13 or maybe even earlier
"Chest Binding Helps Smooth the Way for Transgender Teens, but There May Be Risks People who use binders report symptoms like back and chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath.
"It used to be that when a 13-year-old wanted a binder for school, it meant a trip to Staples. For today’s tweens and teens who identify as gender-nonconforming or transgender, shopping for a binder may mean a compression undergarment worn to flatten breasts."
This happened to a friend's child, in London, so it's not just an American thing
"There May Be Risks" - well, whodathunkit?
Yeah, amazing, right?
And of course once you start on this then confirmation bias, and the difficulty of admitting doubt - allied to the pressure from the genderfluid lobby - means you are likely to go further. From the same article:
"Dr. Steever said most of his patients who use binders “then tell me the next things they want to do, like testosterone, mastectomy and maybe phalloplasty. Ninety-five percent of the people I’ve evaluated get started on cross-hormones.” (Cross-gender hormone treatment in young people may affect future fertility, but data is limited.)"
You are right these issues are being talked about in private but many people are too aware of the politically correct thought police to make their views known in public.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
And don't people need to live as whatever for 2 years before they can get a GRC, or do I misunderstand?
SGs agree not to throw their toys out of the pram.
Does look as if Mr Yousaf will be FM, barring something really unexpected.
As was predictable...
Not at all. Look how closely he came to losing.
Would Humza Yousef have won IF the issues (to put it kindly) with SNP internal governance, had NOT been kept under wraps until voting by membership had begun?
Does anyone know, how many votes were already cast & in the can BEFORE revelations re: membership and resignation of the Queen Fish's other (if not better) half?
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
Isn't that how rapists ended up in women's prisons?
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
And don't people need to live as whatever for 2 years before they can get a GRC, or do I misunderstand?
Labour leads by 19%, the first time in 2023 that Labour has led by less than 20%.
Westminster VI (26 March):
Labour 46% (-1) Conservative 27% (+1) Liberal Democrat 10% (-1) Reform UK 8% (+3) Green 4% (-2) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 19 March
ReFUK +3% isn't good news for the Tories. Though it is MoE.
Might be MoE, of course. After all, it might all be MoE. Though the balance of zigs and zags is working towards the Conservatives right now, and Labour will get twitchy if it continues.
But the risk of raising Boats as an isssue was that it reminded people of RefUK's existence and purpose.
And remember kids, the October 1995 ICM (as a rough proxy for 18 months before the general election) was Labour 47, Conservative 30, Lib Dem 19.
The Tories have a massive problem with boats. They are writing policy in crayon to whip up utter fury in their remaining client vote. The problem is that the bill stands no chance of delivery, and the puce vote won't stand for further excuses.
As you say, that points them in the direction of the FUKers who undoubtedly will benefit from the Nigel being very visible in saying the Tories have failed. And he has a nice platform on GBeebies to slam the government on.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Wrong, the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland doesn't even bless homosexual couples like the Church of England does let alone marry them. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church in the UK
I'm being polite and talking about what the previous poster was talking about. Which was disestablishment. A thoroughlfy necessary reform, as the Victorians iknew.
to add to my point this is from an article in the european conservative about the difference between boomer conservatives and young conservatives.
This, it seems to me, is what accounts for the fundamental divide that exists between typical boomer conservatives and typical young conservatives: the former believe that there is at root nothing fundamentally wrong with the modern project, only that there are some issues at the surface level that are frustrating the lives of ordinary people. Young conservatives, on the other hand, think that our civilisation is sick, festering with old tumours of which the cysts of transgenderism and critical race theory are mere symptoms—and it is precisely ‘ordinary people’ who are the problem, capitulating as they do at every stage of our civilisation’s self-destruction.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
Its a horrible balance to find. I agree that the thought of a teenage child being able to do this massive thing without needing adult approval is awful . On the flip side we have a problem with teenage suicide, so does saying "no" to a teen who in their gut feels that their gender is wrong just drive them to the old solution?
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
I might have a little bit of sympathy with this. But marriage has been a legal contract defined by the state for a long time, and the state has to treat everyone equally. And when marriage was legally completely redefined in the 2nd half of the 19th century to allow married women to be independent legal entities and own their own property etc (arguably a far bigger change than just allowing same-sex marriage), would we have much sympathy for people who were opposed to the change because it changed the meaning of marriage?
If religions want their own kind of arrangements then either call it something other than 'marriage', or take legal marriage away from everyone and call the legal thing a civil partnership, and then marriage would have no legal standing.
Leon for example i would describe as the archetypical boomer conservative. Generally socially fairly liberal but just a bit worried about the recent excesses of the woke movement.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
I might have a little bit of sympathy with this. But marriage has been a legal contract defined by the state for a long time, and the state has to treat everyone equally. And when marriage was legally completely redefined in the 2nd half of the 19th century to allow married women to be independent legal entities and own their own property etc (arguably a far bigger change than just allowing same-sex marriage), would we have much sympathy for people who were opposed to the change because it changed the meaning of marriage?
If religions want their own kind of arrangements then either call it something other than 'marriage', or take legal marriage away from everyone and call the legal thing a civil partnership, and then marriage would have no legal standing.
In Scotland, marriage *was* a legal contract first and foremost after the Reformation. The religious bit was optional. Some folk liked to have the minister do it, but that wasn't the important bit. The actual agreement to get married was the important bit.
Just goes to show how even extremely religious people can grasp that distinction.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
You have to be an adult to have the surgery.
(also, nothing to do with the GRR)
You don't have to be an adult to be given the drugs.
Well you were talking about "hacking the body around" so I thought you might be referring to surgery.
Also a couple of other points:
Drugs to impact puberty. OTOH of course these treatments shouldn't be dispensed willy nilly. But OTOH if you are going to transition the earlier the better because then the lifelong mismatch with your gender id is mitigated. So there's 2 sides to this.
Authoritative studies show that the VAST majority of people who transition say their life is improved because of it.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
When I was at school we had nothing like that on the wall. But we did have rampant homophobic bullying and the boy who wanted to be called Clarissa did not have a good time at school. Have we lurched too far in the opposite direction? Quite possibly. But we are in a better place than we were thirty years ago, I am certain of that.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
I've personally witnessed that parental pain, it is harrowing. I've no doubt that gender dysphoria is harrowing as well, but we should always err on the side of caution with teenagers. How can you KNOW you want your breasts to stop growing, age thirteen?
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
When I was at school we had nothing like that on the wall. But we did have rampant homophobic bullying and the boy who wanted to be called Clarissa did not have a good time at school. Have we lurched too far in the opposite direction? Quite possibly. But we are in a better place than we were thirty years ago, I am certain of that.
Im not so sure. Pretty sure we still have homophobic bullying. And I dont think the nature of sex education in schools now has a lot to recommend it.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
I've personally witnessed that parental pain, it is harrowing. I've no doubt that gender dysphoria is harrowing as well, but we should always err on the side of caution with teenagers. How can you KNOW you want your breasts to stop growing, age thirteen?
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
Its a horrible balance to find. I agree that the thought of a teenage child being able to do this massive thing without needing adult approval is awful . On the flip side we have a problem with teenage suicide, so does saying "no" to a teen who in their gut feels that their gender is wrong just drive them to the old solution?
Fair point. The whole thing is just too complex for easy answers. It should not be the political football it has become.
Leon for example i would describe as the archetypical boomer conservative. Generally socially fairly liberal but just a bit worried about the recent excesses of the woke movement.
if you peruse the Entire Works of Leon (and what better way to spend an evening?) you will find that I am more than "a bit worried" about Wokeness
I think Woke is a mortal threat to western freedom and the Enlightenment. So I'm more like your younger conservative in that respect (despite being so advanced in years etc etc)
Leon for example i would describe as the archetypical boomer conservative. Generally socially fairly liberal but just a bit worried about the recent excesses of the woke movement.
if you peruse the Entire Works of Leon (and what better way to spend an evening?) you will find that I am more than "a bit worried" about Wokeness
I think Woke is a mortal threat to western freedom and the Enlightenment. So I'm more like your younger conservative in that respect (despite being so advanced in years etc etc)
I agree with you. Subdividing people by sex, race and sexuality is incredibly destructive not to mention anti social harmony.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
When I was at school we had nothing like that on the wall. But we did have rampant homophobic bullying and the boy who wanted to be called Clarissa did not have a good time at school. Have we lurched too far in the opposite direction? Quite possibly. But we are in a better place than we were thirty years ago, I am certain of that.
Unfortunately, the stats on the mental health of our kids are not so upbeat and optimistic
The gender agenda is just one part of this, of course. Social media is another big problem. Isolation and loneliness get worse. The damage done by the Covid closure of schools is now becoming horribly evident
Canada said, "This is not just poor kids who are living in the urban centers. It's all over America. There's been a dramatic drop in ELA and in math scores. This goes along with the loss of students in school, with the increased violence that's happening, and the behavioral problems that kids are facing. In my career of more than 45 years, I've never seen anything like this."
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
I've personally witnessed that parental pain, it is harrowing. I've no doubt that gender dysphoria is harrowing as well, but we should always err on the side of caution with teenagers. How can you KNOW you want your breasts to stop growing, age thirteen?
Madness
I also know parents in this situation, it is undoubtedly a difficult situation for them and it defies easy answers. In most circumstances I would say that it is better to wait before making any irrevocable decisions, but I'd be wary of taking an absolute position since the welfare of each individual child may not fit with that kind of approach.
Comments
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
You're quite right that previous reforms were sometimes feared to threaten other groups - but always "oppressor" groups. This is different - "women" has moved from an "oppressed" group to an "oppressor" group so it's no surprise it's causing problems.
There are actually 81... https://helpfulprofessor.com/types-of-genders-list/
I note - google - that in 2021 in the US (first google result) there were 1,390 children between 6-17yrs who initiated puberty blocker treatment.
I have no idea how many 6-17yr olds there are in the US but that doesn't sound like a lot.
As I said societal norms change. We seem to be in one of those phases now. Is ever person undergoing gender reassignment surgery going to be happy ever after? I'm absolutely sure not. Is ever child between 6-17yrs receiving puberty blocking drugs going to live regret-free? Also sure not.
But formulating policy on (in this case, in the US) a tiny number of edge cases is not the way forward either.
Edit: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/
SGs agree not to throw their toys out of the pram.
Does look as if Mr Yousaf will be FM, barring something really unexpected.
Some people on PB seem to be in wilful denial, or plain ignorance, of all this
Can any particular FM make a positive difference to Scotland? Yep.
Can any particular FM transform the Scottish economy relative to England in a few years? No. Not without recourse to magic.
Six months after taking on the transport portfolio, Mr Yousaf faced the embarrassment of being fined £300 and having six penalty points added to his licence after being stopped by the police while driving his friend's car without the proper insurance.
Another dodgy driver?
We already have 1 UK Govt Minister with a recent ban, another one about to get one in all probability, at least one Welsh Govt Minister with a recent ban, Andy Burnham getting a slapped wrist for 78mph in a 40 limit last week, and the Notts Police & Complaints Commissioner with her 5 speeding offences in 4 months.
Is there no end to it?
Is car insurance available on expenses?
No wonder it's all slopey-shoulders on pavement parking.
My son put it like this - "we learn about Buddhism in RE - doesn't mean I'm going to become a Buddhist".
Labour 2021 voters - Net favourability:
Sturgeon -33%
Forbes -16%
Yousuf -40%
Conservative 2021 voters - Net favourability:
Sturgeon -77%
Forbes -18%
Yousuf -77%
Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race.
I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls.
Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
Coming to JK Rowling (remember I am an expert on this now, having listened to the podcast), it seems that saying a woman has a cervix is "anti-trans". Now, I can understand that there is a belief amongst some people that certain elements should be beyond debate, gender being one of them. And at the fundamental level I see why people believe that. I also understand the view which says that no one can be a woman unless they are born with 2X chromosomes.
However, given the state of flux of gender ID I think it absolutely right that these issues should be discussed and for me that trumps the "no debate" standpoint held by some trans advocates.
(I might keep doing this - can't do any harm)
RedfieldWilton
Labour leads by 19%, the first time in 2023 that Labour has led by less than 20%.
Westminster VI (26 March):
Labour 46% (-1)
Conservative 27% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 10% (-1)
Reform UK 8% (+3)
Green 4% (-2)
SNP 3% (-1)
Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 19 March
I'm not sure that clears the bar of a "trans agenda forced upon pupils".
Children go through phases.(*) Waiting until adulthood to make sure that there isn't a misdiagnosis is surely understandable.
(*) I had a My Little Pony phase!
(also, nothing to do with the GRR)
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
Of course if some Rowling-esque economy transforming spell was discovered, the bar would then be raised to world peace.
I understand it but the trans issue is not mature enough for there to be no debate although ultimately debate is futile, like Richard Dawkins debating the Archbishop of Canterbury about the existence of god.
The government is charged with drawing the appropriate line and who would possibly envy them.
Though, of course, it's a midterm poll and just one poll so I wouldn't advocate analysing it at that level.
But the risk of raising Boats as an isssue was that it reminded people of RefUK's existence and purpose.
And remember kids, the October 1995 ICM (as a rough proxy for 18 months before the general election) was Labour 47, Conservative 30, Lib Dem 19.
Director of Italian Museum invites Florida school class to visit Italy, see the statue and learn that nudity may be art.:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65087218
In 2015 remember UKIP took white working class Labour votes not just Conservative votes
"Chest Binding Helps Smooth the Way for Transgender Teens, but There May Be Risks
People who use binders report symptoms like back and chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath.
"It used to be that when a 13-year-old wanted a binder for school, it meant a trip to Staples. For today’s tweens and teens who identify as gender-nonconforming or transgender, shopping for a binder may mean a compression undergarment worn to flatten breasts."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/well/transgender-teens-binders.html
THIRTEEN YEARS OLD
This happened to a friend's child, in London, so it's not just an American thing
I missed the Burnham story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-65075890
Mr Burnham said he was "not aware of any variable speed limit in place on the smart motorway at the time" and only found out about it when the letter notifying him arrived in the post.
Oh yeah, whatever. What he means is, it was late at night and he assumed the limits had been left on from earlier in the day (which, to be fair, would probably be about right).
And of course once you start on this then confirmation bias, and the difficulty of admitting doubt - allied to the pressure from the genderfluid lobby - means you are likely to go further. From the same article:
"Dr. Steever said most of his patients who use binders “then tell me the next things they want to do, like testosterone, mastectomy and maybe phalloplasty. Ninety-five percent of the people I’ve evaluated get started on cross-hormones.” (Cross-gender hormone treatment in young people may affect future fertility, but data is limited.)"
No wonder your party is collapsing
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Just as the Church of England formally does not remarry divorcees either only blesses them unless on grounds of spousal adultery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCkwMFoQno0
Does anyone know, how many votes were already cast & in the can BEFORE revelations re: membership and resignation of the Queen Fish's other (if not better) half?
As you say, that points them in the direction of the FUKers who undoubtedly will benefit from the Nigel being very visible in saying the Tories have failed. And he has a nice platform on GBeebies to slam the government on.
https://twitter.com/breakingien/status/1640388379513700354?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
This, it seems to me, is what accounts for the fundamental divide that exists between typical boomer conservatives and typical young conservatives: the former believe that there is at root nothing fundamentally wrong with the modern project, only that there are some issues at the surface level that are frustrating the lives of ordinary people. Young conservatives, on the other hand, think that our civilisation is sick, festering with old tumours of which the cysts of transgenderism and critical race theory are mere symptoms—and it is precisely ‘ordinary people’ who are the problem, capitulating as they do at every stage of our civilisation’s self-destruction.
If religions want their own kind of arrangements then either call it something other than 'marriage', or take legal marriage away from everyone and call the legal thing a civil partnership, and then marriage would have no legal standing.
Just goes to show how even extremely religious people can grasp that distinction.
Also a couple of other points:
Drugs to impact puberty. OTOH of course these treatments shouldn't be dispensed willy nilly. But OTOH if you are going to transition the earlier the better because then the lifelong mismatch with your gender id is mitigated. So there's 2 sides to this.
Authoritative studies show that the VAST majority of people who transition say their life is improved because of it.
Madness
I think Woke is a mortal threat to western freedom and the Enlightenment. So I'm more like your younger conservative in that respect (despite being so advanced in years etc etc)
The gender agenda is just one part of this, of course. Social media is another big problem. Isolation and loneliness get worse. The damage done by the Covid closure of schools is now becoming horribly evident
Canada said, "This is not just poor kids who are living in the urban centers. It's all over America. There's been a dramatic drop in ELA and in math scores. This goes along with the loss of students in school, with the increased violence that's happening, and the behavioral problems that kids are facing. In my career of more than 45 years, I've never seen anything like this."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covids-education-crisis-a-lost-generation/