Labour’s watering down of their green investment pledge may be good politics, but is bad economics. It is essentially the same thinking that has seen the postponement of the HS2 programme.
"We will do X!"
"No, we won't. We will have an aspiration to do X in the third year..."
Now, I said repeatedly on PB that the soft signal rule was completely illogical, as it forced umpires to make a call when they weren't sure about the decision, and that that call then influence the TV umpire – so you you had the blind leading the sited.
I was derided, over and again by the self-proclaimed PB Cricket Experts (who often know very little about cricket).
Yet it appears that ICC agree with me, and have abolished it, for exactly the reasons I stated on here time and again to almost universal derision.
Funny old world. Huh.
Good decision. I was never a fan of the soft signal.
Apparently the next thing they're going to discuss is whether to get rid of umpire's call.
Yep, agreed.
Shane Warne always argued that umpire's call was silly – why not have the boundary on half the ball, he said.
It is a fair point.
They should keep umpire's call because there's a margin for error, and the purpose of DRS is to overturn clear errors and if its within umpire's call its not a clear error.
Football should add it to VAR too rather than messing amount with millimetre wide offside decisions.
This is so obvious but as so often the rule makers and players are trying their hardest to ruin the beautiful game. The referee and linesmen make their the decisions. Sometimes they make howlers and these should be overturned by video evidence. That means if it is blatantly obvious to everyone who knows the rules of football that the wrong decision was made as soon as a replay is shown then overrule the decision. If you have to look a second time or from 10 different angles, then the referees decision is not a howler. You certainly should not be faffing around for 5 minutes with the referee running over to a private viewing of a replay.
Thankfully the sport itsef seems to be so robust that it can somehow survive any attempt at sabbotaging the rules.
I may have missed this in last night threads, but did the "Free Speech" brigade defend Prof Grace Lavery against the environment of academic censorship created by people who most argue about academic censorship?
I understand that all British people ever talk about is trans issues but it is quite off putting to a “citizen of the world” like me. You sound deranged and obsessed
I may have missed this in last night threads, but did the "Free Speech" brigade defend Prof Grace Lavery against the environment of academic censorship created by people who most argue about academic censorship?
Labour’s watering down of their green investment pledge may be good politics, but is bad economics. It is essentially the same thinking that has seen the postponement of the HS2 programme.
"We will do X!"
"No, we won't. We will have an aspiration to do X in the third year..."
Is good politics how?
Clown troupe.
It’s bog standard pre-election repositioning. I presume you’re new to this politics thing.
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
Labour’s watering down of their green investment pledge may be good politics, but is bad economics. It is essentially the same thinking that has seen the postponement of the HS2 programme.
I don’t think it’s even good politics. People who think it’s “green crap” still think you’re into “green crap”, just a bit less of it. People who want to see transformative change start to think you’re not serious and a green vote gets more tempting for them.
The Court of Appeal has denied Carole Cadwalladr’s request to appeal her loss to the Supreme Court. In the decision, the court said an appeal to the Supreme Court is only granted when a case “raises an arguable point of law of general public importance”, in the court’s words “this decision does not do so”. Carole wasn’t challenging the court order to pay a third of Banks’ appeal costs, only that she pay 60% of the first proceedings. However, the court ruled that “in our view, there is no arguable case”…
The court records include one further detail which many in the media could do with remembering:
“Ms Cadwalladr does not challenge the court’s decision that Mr Banks was the successful party overall.”
It's the law as it is in the UK, but I for one certainly think the balance is far too tilted towards being able to be found libellous over freedom of speech. The 2nd amendment might be bad for the USA but their first one and jurisprudence on speech are superior to our laws.
Agreed - though it should be noted that has not always been the case.
The current state of the veneration of free speech rests very much on twentieth century jurisprudence - and owes much to the evolution of Oliver Wendell Holmes' beliefs on the subject, culminating in his great dissent in the 1919 case Abrams v. United States. Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas... . The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
And note also the growing nostalgia in the Republican party for the Comstock Laws of the nineteenth century.
I understand that all British people ever talk about is trans issues but it is quite off putting to a “citizen of the world” like me. You sound deranged and obsessed
I was trying to avoid bringing that awkward elephant in the room - the brain - into into it. I've always considered psychiatry to be a branch of medicine that is a century behind the more physical stuff. Hence the need to classify and reclassify everything.
I know I'm being less than logical. Apologies. My brain still struggles with the concept that any female can be herosexual despite being an evolutionary advantage.
Still, Physics is still groping with some quantum theories so it's in good company.
Labour’s watering down of their green investment pledge may be good politics, but is bad economics. It is essentially the same thinking that has seen the postponement of the HS2 programme.
I don’t think it’s even good politics. People who think it’s “green crap” still think you’re into “green crap”, just a bit less of it. People who want to see transformative change start to think you’re not serious and a green vote gets more tempting for them.
It’s good politics because it hedges against the idiots lining up to say “but where’s the money coming from?”
Sadly the idiots have a lockhold on much of British public debate.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
I'm only going to be able to pop in and out of PB today so can someone please keep me up to date with how the Ukrainian counter offensive is going.
TIA
I don't think it's something you should expect a real time update of, TBH...
However, if there really is heavy fighting around Tokmak... (Only the Guardian, mind! A typo for fighting on TikTok, perhaps)
“Russian bloggers are now reporting Leopards and Bradleys attacking in Tokmak in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. If confirmed, it suggests at least one Ukrainian assault brigade has been committed."
Be wary about the Tokmak thing; it is not only a town, but also a region. It's perfectly possible that the Ukes might be in the north of the named area; less so that they are in the town, which is further south. Though I hope they are...
As caveated - it's The Guardian!
(It also relies on Russian bloggers telling a Leopard from a tractor...!)
Ukrainian media has also reported the loss of at least one Leopard tank in combat.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
I have a few ideas....
By their behaviour and self identification as such?
Labour’s watering down of their green investment pledge may be good politics, but is bad economics. It is essentially the same thinking that has seen the postponement of the HS2 programme.
"We will do X!"
"No, we won't. We will have an aspiration to do X in the third year..."
Is good politics how?
Clown troupe.
If you're in a hole, stop digging.
It would have been better not to make the "28 billion in year 1" pledge in the first place, but Starmer doesn't have a time machine any more than anyone else.
(Even if the money was available without spooking the markets, which it might not be, phasing it in could be smarter. One of the problems with public services in the noughties was having more cash suddenly thrown at them than they had capacity to spend efficiently.)
Poor politics, but not disastrous government. Any any pledge before the manifesto is at least a bit provisional.
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
The Court of Appeal has denied Carole Cadwalladr’s request to appeal her loss to the Supreme Court. In the decision, the court said an appeal to the Supreme Court is only granted when a case “raises an arguable point of law of general public importance”, in the court’s words “this decision does not do so”. Carole wasn’t challenging the court order to pay a third of Banks’ appeal costs, only that she pay 60% of the first proceedings. However, the court ruled that “in our view, there is no arguable case”…
The court records include one further detail which many in the media could do with remembering:
“Ms Cadwalladr does not challenge the court’s decision that Mr Banks was the successful party overall.”
It's the law as it is in the UK, but I for one certainly think the balance is far too tilted towards being able to be found libellous over freedom of speech. The 2nd amendment might be bad for the USA but their first one and jurisprudence on speech are superior to our laws.
Agreed - though it should be noted that has not always been the case.
The current state of the veneration of free speech rests very much on twentieth century jurisprudence - and owes much to the evolution of Oliver Wendell Holmes' beliefs on the subject, culminating in his great dissent in the 1919 case Abrams v. United States. Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas... . The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
And note also the growing nostalgia in the Republican party for the Comstock Laws of the nineteenth century.
I understand that all British people ever talk about is trans issues but it is quite off putting to a “citizen of the world” like me. You sound deranged and obsessed
That last phrase reminds me of something or someone. Can't quite bring it to mind.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
I have a few ideas....
By their behaviour and self identification as such?
Sexual orientation is entirely *chooses words carefully* - well it doesn't have any obvious biological facts on the ground unlike biological sex.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
It’s not true that the markets won’t accept borrowing for capital investment.
Indeed, it’s the only way out of British stagnation.
The Truss lesson was rather that borrowing for tax cuts, with no plan to repay, is not credible.
The most interesting lesson from Truss, which no one seems to have bothered to think about, is what it revealed about how asleep at the wheel pension funds are. That sector clearly needs a shakeup
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
Wowsers.
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
Pay's your money, takes your choice. Unless you are the BBC, in which case you are still -being even-handed about who blew it up. Putinista arse-licking twats.
The UK and US governments are also being non-committal so far, sticking to the "well, it only happened because Putin started the war" line. Personally I think it probably was the Russians (pause for you to celebrate me as an anti-Putin hero...no? Oh well) and I suspect the US position will change, but the BBC are right not to rush in where the authorities are not yet sure.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
Being gay doesn't affect anyone else. If you're in a consensual relationship with someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, doesn't affect anyone else.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
Once again this is Zelensky being a political master, and using her to mobilise demographics against Putin that might often be captured by “Stop the War” thinking.
I mostly think she’s harmful to the mission of slowing climate change with her apocalyptic hyperbole, but she’s done a helpful thing here.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
The Court of Appeal has denied Carole Cadwalladr’s request to appeal her loss to the Supreme Court. In the decision, the court said an appeal to the Supreme Court is only granted when a case “raises an arguable point of law of general public importance”, in the court’s words “this decision does not do so”. Carole wasn’t challenging the court order to pay a third of Banks’ appeal costs, only that she pay 60% of the first proceedings. However, the court ruled that “in our view, there is no arguable case”…
The court records include one further detail which many in the media could do with remembering:
“Ms Cadwalladr does not challenge the court’s decision that Mr Banks was the successful party overall.”
It's the law as it is in the UK, but I for one certainly think the balance is far too tilted towards being able to be found libellous over freedom of speech. The 2nd amendment might be bad for the USA but their first one and jurisprudence on speech are superior to our laws.
Agreed - though it should be noted that has not always been the case.
The current state of the veneration of free speech rests very much on twentieth century jurisprudence - and owes much to the evolution of Oliver Wendell Holmes' beliefs on the subject, culminating in his great dissent in the 1919 case Abrams v. United States. Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas... . The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
And note also the growing nostalgia in the Republican party for the Comstock Laws of the nineteenth century.
...The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 250 U. S. 630; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 343 U. S. 288-289..
It's fascinating that much of the power of the First Amendment rests on a dissent - though the 1927 Brandeis opinion, this time with the majority, in Whiteney v. California is a reinforcing, much cited, even broader view:
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Pay's your money, takes your choice. Unless you are the BBC, in which case you are still -being even-handed about who blew it up. Putinista arse-licking twats.
The UK and US governments are also being non-committal so far, sticking to the "well, it only happened because Putin started the war" line. Personally I think it probably was the Russians (pause for you to celebrate me as an anti-Putin hero...no? Oh well) and I suspect the US position will change, but the BBC are right not to rush in where the authorities are not yet sure.
Agree on all counts. I strongly support Ukraine and think we should do as much as we can to help, but folk need to be psychologically prepared for the fact that Ukrainians will have committed war crimes. Nowhere near as many or as systemically as the Russians but they will be there and we need to treat them all the same.
I'm only going to be able to pop in and out of PB today so can someone please keep me up to date with how the Ukrainian counter offensive is going.
TIA
I don't think it's something you should expect a real time update of, TBH...
However, if there really is heavy fighting around Tokmak... (Only the Guardian, mind! A typo for fighting on TikTok, perhaps)
“Russian bloggers are now reporting Leopards and Bradleys attacking in Tokmak in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. If confirmed, it suggests at least one Ukrainian assault brigade has been committed."
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
So the main citation is the study that spoke to the transphobic parents of trans children instead of any trans children themselves?
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
Wowsers.
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
There are plenty of Remainers still Conservative MPs Jeremy Hunt, Greg Clarke, Matt Hancock, Jeremy Wright, Theresa May, Liz Truss, David Mundell, Alex Chalk etc were all allowed to stand again by CCHQ even under Boris. Only MPs who refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or Brexit Deal or No Deal were deselected.
Even Cameron kept IDS as a parliamentary candidate, Starmer has even deselected Corbyn, his predecessor as party leader in whose Shadow Cabinet he served.
If activists and councillors on the left who keep Labour going in opposition (as activists and councillors on the right keep the Conservatives going in opposition) are all prevented from standing in parliamentary seats that is not a healthy future for the party longer term if they are all replaced by centrist careerists who will all scarper as soon as things get tough. To be fair Cameron had a few of those too, no names mentioned Louise Mensch
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
There's some interesting epidemiology here, in particular the apparent (the data are not great) high co-occurrence of autism with GD. The recent change in children has been an substantial increase in natal females experiencing GD approaching adolescence and it appears that many of those have autism.
Now, there are competing explanations for that: A They're autistic, don't fit in, GD is an explanation that they seek - they're not misfits, they're just trapped in the wrong body B They really are male inside, autism traits (and who knows, maybe autism itself) being related to that and, related: A Higher profile of trans issues and trans people has made more people with other issues think they are trans B Higher profile of trans issues and trans people has made more people who are trans confident enough to say so
The change in natal females is certainly striking - there has been much less of a change for natal males. There isn't really an A or B supporting explanation that is convincing for the sudden natal female increase rather than a more uniform increase across natal sexes. Unfortunately, I think we're flying blind here - there isn't yet really the evidence or the time required to differentiate between any of the above explanations. And it's complicated by the fact that even if A is true, there are also people who really are trans and even if B is true there are also people who have other issues and are just confused teenagers/children.
All of which (the lack of good evidence) really sucks if you're a child with GD or a parent of a child with GD at present. It would at least help if more people on the extremes would recognise that no one really knows and most people are trying to do their best.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
I do not know what has caused this marked increase. Research into it should not be seen as taking sides in the surrounding political debate, or invalidating the experiences of the girls/young women involved. I would hope research would lead to better health services for them.
Generally speaking, if there is a marked increase in a condition or demand for a particular healthcare service (within a particular demographic or more broadly), it makes sense to ask why, and to do research into the matter if the answer isn't obvious. That is true whether we're talking about gender dysphoria, impetigo or lung cancer.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
Wikipedia. Case closed.
American sources. End of debate.
No UK medical organisation/association recognises it either.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
Being gay doesn't affect anyone else. If you're in a consensual relationship with someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, doesn't affect anyone else.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
Look at Sean F’s post about men wanting to buy wedding dresses and the immediate assumption that was some kind of fetishistic desire. Society does police gender norms - I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but that is what happens. That’s why many transpeople feel the need to “pass”.
Also, go back to anti LGB arguments made 20, 30, 40 years ago and see how people made the argument that being openly gay really does impact other people (like “devalues their marriage” etc.) Again, I view it as insincere garbage; but the argument was made.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
So the main citation is the study that spoke to the transphobic parents of trans children instead of any trans children themselves?
Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, especially in the US. But some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
So the main citation is the study that spoke to the transphobic parents of trans children instead of any trans children themselves?
Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, especially in the US. But some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
So the main citation is the study that spoke to the transphobic parents of trans children instead of any trans children themselves?
Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, especially in the US. But some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
So do you accept that your first link cited a scientifically discredited source, or no? And I’m sure the increase in political discourse has no impact on medical care.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
Being gay doesn't affect anyone else. If you're in a consensual relationship with someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, doesn't affect anyone else.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
Look at Sean F’s post about men wanting to buy wedding dresses and the immediate assumption that was some kind of fetishistic desire. Society does police gender norms - I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but that is what happens. That’s why many transpeople feel the need to “pass”.
Also, go back to anti LGB arguments made 20, 30, 40 years ago and see how people made the argument that being openly gay really does impact other people (like “devalues their marriage” etc.) Again, I view it as insincere garbage; but the argument was made.
If a dude wants to buy a dress he should be able to buy a dress, doesn't make him trans, it might just make him Scottish.
If you're reinforcing those norms and saying anyone non-conformist is "in the wrong body" rather than simply has different interests, then I think that is very demeaning to the individual concerned. There's nothing wrong with them, they just have different interests - that doesn't make them a different sex or gender.
Yes "devalues their marriage" was bullshit and called out as bullshit at the time. Same as people objecting to "them" as a pronoun is bullshit today, or objecting to people changing names is bullshit today.
Plenty of bullshit exists. Where safeguarding is real, that needs to be taken seriously though.
If someone who's been through male puberty wants to do competitive female sport, or if someone who has used their penis to rape a woman wants to be sent to a female prison block, then yes we need to take those concerns seriously rather than say it is insincere garbage.
Pay's your money, takes your choice. Unless you are the BBC, in which case you are still -being even-handed about who blew it up. Putinista arse-licking twats.
The UK and US governments are also being non-committal so far, sticking to the "well, it only happened because Putin started the war" line. Personally I think it probably was the Russians (pause for you to celebrate me as an anti-Putin hero...no? Oh well) and I suspect the US position will change, but the BBC are right not to rush in where the authorities are not yet sure.
Agree on all counts. I strongly support Ukraine and think we should do as much as we can to help, but folk need to be psychologically prepared for the fact that Ukrainians will have committed war crimes. Nowhere near as many or as systemically as the Russians but they will be there and we need to treat them all the same.
If only there had been blog comments columns in 1975. Some Russian guy named after a fictional pilot could have made the same point regarding Northern Ireland: we strongly support the IRA but there've been crimes on all three sides and we need to treat alleged criminals from the UVF, the British army, and the IRA all the same.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
Being gay doesn't affect anyone else. If you're in a consensual relationship with someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, doesn't affect anyone else.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
Look at Sean F’s post about men wanting to buy wedding dresses and the immediate assumption that was some kind of fetishistic desire. Society does police gender norms - I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but that is what happens. That’s why many transpeople feel the need to “pass”.
Also, go back to anti LGB arguments made 20, 30, 40 years ago and see how people made the argument that being openly gay really does impact other people (like “devalues their marriage” etc.) Again, I view it as insincere garbage; but the argument was made.
My instinctive response is that it's the policing of gender norms that is the problem, and the idea that people would have major surgery and a lifetime of taking cross-sex hormones, because the policing of gender norms made them feel that they didn't fit in, is frankly barbaric.
Now, I've seen documentaries about adults who have surgery to more closely resemble cats, and that doesn't make much sense to me either, but an adult has liberty to do what they care to do to their own body. I don't think we should necessarily be in the business of recognising them as legally a cat, or allowing this sort of surgery to happen to children.
I understand that all British people ever talk about is trans issues but it is quite off putting to a “citizen of the world” like me. You sound deranged and obsessed
Perhaps if you posted a picture of a plate with food on it, or a glass containing a drink, then that would distract people. The world eagerly awaits.
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
Wowsers.
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
There are plenty of Remainers still Conservative MPs Jeremy Hunt, Greg Clarke, Matt Hancock, Jeremy Wright, Theresa May, Liz Truss, David Mundell, Alex Chalk etc were all allowed to stand again by CCHQ even under Boris. Only MPs who refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or Brexit Deal or No Deal were deselected.
Even Cameron kept IDS as a parliamentary candidate, Starmer has even deselected Corbyn, his predecessor as party leader in whose Shadow Cabinet he served.
If activists and councillors on the left who keep Labour going in opposition (as activists and councillors on the right keep the Conservatives going in opposition) are all prevented from standing in parliamentary seats that is not a healthy future for the party longer term if they are all replaced by centrist careerists who will all scarper as soon as things get tough. To be fair Cameron had a few of those too, no names mentioned Louise Mensch
I agree.
Also Driscoll is a genuine home grown political talent. He has an interesting backstory and he holds actual opinions.
Instead of nurturing a future northern heavy weight he has been shafted.
Pay's your money, takes your choice. Unless you are the BBC, in which case you are still -being even-handed about who blew it up. Putinista arse-licking twats.
The UK and US governments are also being non-committal so far, sticking to the "well, it only happened because Putin started the war" line. Personally I think it probably was the Russians (pause for you to celebrate me as an anti-Putin hero...no? Oh well) and I suspect the US position will change, but the BBC are right not to rush in where the authorities are not yet sure.
Agree on all counts. I strongly support Ukraine and think we should do as much as we can to help, but folk need to be psychologically prepared for the fact that Ukrainians will have committed war crimes. Nowhere near as many or as systemically as the Russians but they will be there and we need to treat them all the same.
If only there had been blog comments columns in 1975. Some Russian guy named after a fictional pilot could have made the same point regarding Northern Ireland: we strongly support the IRA but there've been crimes on all three sides and we need to treat alleged criminals from the UVF, the British army, and the IRA all the same.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
So the main citation is the study that spoke to the transphobic parents of trans children instead of any trans children themselves?
Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, especially in the US. But some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
So do you accept that your first link cited a scientifically discredited source, or no? And I’m sure the increase in political discourse has no impact on medical care.
The fact that the American Medical establishment, heavily wedded to "affirmative care" (sic) disputes an alternative hypothesis does not surprise me.
The point is nobody knows and ROGD has as much going for it as "affirmative care". Both are consistent with the (very) limited evidence.
Only one of the hypotheses is making irreversible changes to children's bodies.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
The same as any law is enforced, primarily by people self-respecting the law.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the law?
If a person is in a shop, and a shop keeper accuses them of stealing and goes to a nearby police officer, the officer can ask the person accused to empty their pockets / bag, ask them what they have done, and detain them for the period of time it takes check the security cameras (if they exist) as evidence. Should there be similar protocol for anyone who is accused of being in the wrong bathroom?
Sex and gender define things that often overlap. I have not read a definition of sex that includes everyone who would be included within a definition of male or female that does not also rely on things that typically come under gender - for example there are ciswomen who can give birth who have xy chromosomes. Nobody would call them men, but they are chromosomally "male". This is because sex and gender are both words created to try and put human experience into clear boxes, and biology typically is messy. Sex and gender are both bimodal - they tend towards two nodes on a scale, but have many things in between - and the more we measure the things we use to define sex, the more we find people who live in that in between.
I accept that the law allows for the provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportional and if no other option is available. I also don't know based on government and EHRC guidance what they mean by sex when they say this - again, would our ciswoman who is chromosomally male be guided to the mens' room or the womens' room?
Stealing is against the law.
Creating single sex spaces is protected under the law, but its not a matter of the Police enforcing it.
If someone sexually male goes into a single-sex space which results in objections then the staff who work there should and do have the legal right to ask them to leave the premises as a result, if they choose to do that. That doesn't require a Police officer.
You raised the objection of safeguarding for the trans individual who doesn't want to go into the male toilets, there is a simple and sensible solution for that normally which is to use the disabled WC instead. Not impose themselves on the women's toilets instead.
Its just a case of everyone being sensible and reasonable.
But the point of laws is the belief that people do not always act sensible and reasonable and therefore policing is necessary.
If someone is accused of being a male, and the staff intervene, and the person denies being male - what do the staff do? How do they escalate? Is this person now in breach of the peace? Of course a police officer would be involved if someone is asked to leave the toilet they believe they should use and refuse to. Again, in that scenario what happens? When a masculine ciswoman is told to leave, how do they argue against that without having to resort to documentation or some investigation into their "biological sex"? And what happens if they are a ciswoman who has given birth and on such an investigation into their "biological sex" learns they have xy chromosomes?
The number of cases will be rare, and the number of cases where it is really hard to tell will be rarer still.
I had a client who ran a business, making and selling wedding dresses. Occasionally, she got men coming in, wanting to try on the dresses (some men get a thrill from dressing up as women). It was not difficult to remove them from the shop.
Why can’t men have a wedding dress if they want? Are wedding dresses necessary to be single sex for the purposes of the EA? Even some straight men might prefer to wear a wedding dress than a suit.
The number of cases where it is “really hard to tell” depends on social notions of gender - not sex. There would have been a time where binding, short hair and wearing trousers would have been enough for a woman to “pass” as a man. Masculine ciswomen obviously exist, and at a greater rate within the population than transwomen.
This is a bit Life of Brian.
My client was under no obligation to enter into such a transaction. To have had men trying on the wedding dresses in the shop would have caused discomfort to her, her staff and female customers (the vast majority).
Curiously, none of the men in question ever sued her for sex discrimination
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
Being gay doesn't affect anyone else. If you're in a consensual relationship with someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, doesn't affect anyone else.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
Look at Sean F’s post about men wanting to buy wedding dresses and the immediate assumption that was some kind of fetishistic desire. Society does police gender norms - I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but that is what happens. That’s why many transpeople feel the need to “pass”.
Also, go back to anti LGB arguments made 20, 30, 40 years ago and see how people made the argument that being openly gay really does impact other people (like “devalues their marriage” etc.) Again, I view it as insincere garbage; but the argument was made.
My instinctive response is that it's the policing of gender norms that is the problem, and the idea that people would have major surgery and a lifetime of taking cross-sex hormones, because the policing of gender norms made them feel that they didn't fit in, is frankly barbaric.
Now, I've seen documentaries about adults who have surgery to more closely resemble cats, and that doesn't make much sense to me either, but an adult has liberty to do what they care to do to their own body. I don't think we should necessarily be in the business of recognising them as legally a cat, or allowing this sort of surgery to happen to children.
Transitioning is certainly something only over 18s should be allowed to do. I'd add a very strong inclination to sperm freezing too for M -> F transition, (I don't know if fertility is affected the other way) but the oestrogen will likely render natal males sterile. And kids are something you may well change your mind about decades after transitioning.
Pay's your money, takes your choice. Unless you are the BBC, in which case you are still -being even-handed about who blew it up. Putinista arse-licking twats.
The UK and US governments are also being non-committal so far, sticking to the "well, it only happened because Putin started the war" line. Personally I think it probably was the Russians (pause for you to celebrate me as an anti-Putin hero...no? Oh well) and I suspect the US position will change, but the BBC are right not to rush in where the authorities are not yet sure.
Agree on all counts. I strongly support Ukraine and think we should do as much as we can to help, but folk need to be psychologically prepared for the fact that Ukrainians will have committed war crimes. Nowhere near as many or as systemically as the Russians but they will be there and we need to treat them all the same.
If only there had been blog comments columns in 1975. Some Russian guy named after a fictional pilot could have made the same point regarding Northern Ireland: we strongly support the IRA but there've been crimes on all three sides and we need to treat alleged criminals from the UVF, the British army, and the IRA all the same.
Honestly don’t understand what point you are making or what you might think I was saying?
I'm only going to be able to pop in and out of PB today so can someone please keep me up to date with how the Ukrainian counter offensive is going.
TIA
I don't think it's something you should expect a real time update of, TBH...
However, if there really is heavy fighting around Tokmak... (Only the Guardian, mind! A typo for fighting on TikTok, perhaps)
“Russian bloggers are now reporting Leopards and Bradleys attacking in Tokmak in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. If confirmed, it suggests at least one Ukrainian assault brigade has been committed."
I think "Tokmak" is being used as shorthand for quite a large area. One definitely has to allow for some misunderstandings in press reports. One I saw said that Zaporizhzhia was being attacked by Ukrainian troops on the coast of the Sea of Azov.
People inadvertently drop the "axis" bit from the description. They are usually describing attacks "along the [Tokmak|Zaporizhzhia] axis"
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
I do not know what has caused this marked increase. Research into it should not be seen as taking sides in the surrounding political debate, or invalidating the experiences of the girls/young women involved. I would hope research would lead to better health services for them...
I applaud the sentiment, but what does that mean in practical terms ?
Equally, what do those who argue "puberty blockers are experimental drugs and should not be used without further research" actually mean in practical terms ?
There are serious issues of consent involved, which no one has really appeared to address.
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
Being gay doesn't affect anyone else. If you're in a consensual relationship with someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, doesn't affect anyone else.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
Look at Sean F’s post about men wanting to buy wedding dresses and the immediate assumption that was some kind of fetishistic desire. Society does police gender norms - I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but that is what happens. That’s why many transpeople feel the need to “pass”.
Also, go back to anti LGB arguments made 20, 30, 40 years ago and see how people made the argument that being openly gay really does impact other people (like “devalues their marriage” etc.) Again, I view it as insincere garbage; but the argument was made.
If a dude wants to buy a dress he should be able to buy a dress, doesn't make him trans, it might just make him Scottish.
If you're reinforcing those norms and saying anyone non-conformist is "in the wrong body" rather than simply has different interests, then I think that is very demeaning to the individual concerned. There's nothing wrong with them, they just have different interests - that doesn't make them a different sex or gender.
Yes "devalues their marriage" was bullshit and called out as bullshit at the time. Same as people objecting to "them" as a pronoun is bullshit today, or objecting to people changing names is bullshit today.
Plenty of bullshit exists. Where safeguarding is real, that needs to be taken seriously though.
If someone who's been through male puberty wants to do competitive female sport, or if someone who has used their penis to rape a woman wants to be sent to a female prison block, then yes we need to take those concerns seriously rather than say it is insincere garbage.
I didn't say it made them trans, I just said that what gets policed is gender norms because people can't interact with chromosomes in daily life but do interact with how people present and their preconceived notions of people. So when ciswomen who look a bit too butch get shouted at for being in the wrong loo, that's the policing of gender norms, not biology, and when men get told not to buy wedding dresses that is the policing of gender norms, not biology.
Safeguarding is where there is a risk. There is no evidence that transwomen, for example, commit sexual assault at the same rate as cismen, or more so than ciswomen. So the safeguarding need is, in some circumstances, to protect women from people (typically cismen) who are known to or accused of sexual assault or violence. Which I would say doesn't typically require sex segregated spaces and, where it potentially does, would be about removing cismen from spaces.
I still don't really understand the sports issue. Michael Phelps is, by all standards, a biological freak of nature. Just because he is cis that means it is fine for him to compete against other cismen. Whereas ciswomen who have testosterone levels within the levels you might find in a ciswoman are disqualified from running due to rules aimed at trans athletes. Sports is, by definition, unfair. Like, you are rewarding the better athlete either because they have more resources to dedicate time to training (which is why sports used to be the purview of the rich, and why men are typically advantaged over women because patriarchy considered men more suited to physical activity and therefore sports) and biological variance (see Michael Phelps). You could have non gendered segregated sports but have, say, weight classes or economic considerations which would be fairer than current methods used.
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm just curious. Can anyone point to a case where a criminal offence has been facilitated (in any practical way) by the perpetrator claiming to be trans?
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
So the main citation is the study that spoke to the transphobic parents of trans children instead of any trans children themselves?
Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, especially in the US. But some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
So do you accept that your first link cited a scientifically discredited source, or no? And I’m sure the increase in political discourse has no impact on medical care.
The fact that the American Medical establishment, heavily wedded to "affirmative care" (sic) disputes an alternative hypothesis does not surprise me.
The point is nobody knows and ROGD has as much going for it as "affirmative care". Both are consistent with the (very) limited evidence.
Only one of the hypotheses is making irreversible changes to children's bodies.
Apples and oranges. One is a broad treatment approach, the other is a theorised diagnosis/condition. Of course a theorised diagnosis doesn't involve making changes: it doesn't involve doing anything.
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
HOW CAN BAJOR POSSIBLY CHARGE ME, WHO DID NOTHING WRONG, WHEN NO OTHER PREFECT’S WERE CHARGED, WHEN SISKO WON’T BE CHARGED FOR ANYTHING, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT HE HAS 1,850 DATAPADS, MUCH OF IT CLASSIFIED & SOME DATING BACK TO HIS SARATOGA DAYS WHEN EVEN STARFLEET IS SHOCKED.
ALSO, ADMIRAL PICARD HAD DATAPADS, AND WON IN COURT MARSHAL. CROOKED BURNHAM DELETED 33,000 FILES ON SPORE DRIVE, MANY CLASSIFIED, AND WASN’T EVEN CLOSE TO BEING CHARGED! ONLY DUKAT - THE GREATEST PAH-WRAITH HUNT OF ALL TIME!
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
I do not know what has caused this marked increase. Research into it should not be seen as taking sides in the surrounding political debate, or invalidating the experiences of the girls/young women involved. I would hope research would lead to better health services for them.
Generally speaking, if there is a marked increase in a condition or demand for a particular healthcare service (within a particular demographic or more broadly), it makes sense to ask why, and to do research into the matter if the answer isn't obvious. That is true whether we're talking about gender dysphoria, impetigo or lung cancer.
If you are able to convince someone suffering from anorexia to come to terms with their body image, are you "invalidating their experience"?
The social contagion we're seeing among young girls at the moment is similar, but too many people are unable to see it for what it is because it would invalidate their ideology.
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
I do not know what has caused this marked increase. Research into it should not be seen as taking sides in the surrounding political debate, or invalidating the experiences of the girls/young women involved. I would hope research would lead to better health services for them...
I applaud the sentiment, but what does that mean in practical terms ?
Equally, what do those who argue "puberty blockers are experimental drugs and should not be used without further research" actually mean in practical terms ?
There are serious issues of consent involved, which no one has really appeared to address.
In practical terms? Give some £££ to researchers. (Always a good start.) Get support from relevant stakeholders. Try to be de-escalate the culture war shouting match. (Easier said than done.) Collect data.
I'm only going to be able to pop in and out of PB today so can someone please keep me up to date with how the Ukrainian counter offensive is going.
TIA
I don't think it's something you should expect a real time update of, TBH...
However, if there really is heavy fighting around Tokmak... (Only the Guardian, mind! A typo for fighting on TikTok, perhaps)
“Russian bloggers are now reporting Leopards and Bradleys attacking in Tokmak in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. If confirmed, it suggests at least one Ukrainian assault brigade has been committed."
I think "Tokmak" is being used as shorthand for quite a large area. One definitely has to allow for some misunderstandings in press reports. One I saw said that Zaporizhzhia was being attacked by Ukrainian troops on the coast of the Sea of Azov.
People inadvertently drop the "axis" bit from the description. They are usually describing attacks "along the [Tokmak|Zaporizhzhia] axis"
Yes, that was the impression I got. That people were referring to the "Tokmak Axis", and getting confused.
They’ll say it wasn’t him and was an impersonator! In a poll 43% of GOP voters said he should still be allowed to serve as President even if he’s convicted of a serious felony . Just shows you how deranged his cult following is .
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
They’ll say it wasn’t him and was an impersonator! In a poll 43% of GOP voters said he should still be allowed to serve as President even if he’s convicted of a serious felony . Just shows you how deranged his cult following is .
Constitutionally of course nothing to stop him serving as President again even if he's convicted of a serious felony and jailed if he wins the GOP nomination again and the EC next November
They’ll say it wasn’t him and was an impersonator! In a poll 43% of GOP voters said he should still be allowed to serve as President even if he’s convicted of a serious felony . Just shows you how deranged his cult following is .
Question - is he? Is there a bar to anyone standing beyond the age/nationality ones? Just wondering if he could run as an independent even if the republicans distance themselves, and steal some of their vote for the next 2-3 cycles.
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study(let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists de. Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged. The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded. Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong. It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
So the main citation is the study that spoke to the transphobic parents of trans children instead of any trans children themselves?
Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, especially in the US. But some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
So do you accept that your first link cited a scientifically discredited source, or no? And I’m sure the increase in political discourse has no impact on medical care.
The fact that the American Medical establishment, heavily wedded to "affirmative care" (sic) disputes an alternative hypothesis does not surprise me.
The point is nobody knows and ROGD has as much going for it as "affirmative care". Both are consistent with the (very) limited evidence.
Only one of the hypotheses is making irreversible changes to children's bodies.
That's not true; a lot of natal puberty makes irreversible changes to children's bodies that trans people would prefer not to have. That is why they seek treatment - growth of breast tissue, experiencing periods, growth of hair, testicular dissention, voice deepening, general stature growth or lack thereof are all things that happen to children during puberty and cannot change. Many transpeople even talk about how scary these irreversible changes were when they happened and how they still contribute to dysphoria. And the treatment for that is puberty blockers, as well as hormones. Does that treatment have risks associated with it? Yes. But so does all medical intervention. Should children have no healthcare that does irreversible change or have risks associated with it? The evidence does show that the affirmative care method significantly reduces suicides in children who report having gender dysphoria - or do you doubt that too? (Also the highest numbers cited for increase in dysphoria in children is just those referred to gender care services, not those who go through that process and then decide they wish to receive care).
And your position is that the paper that relies on the testimony of parents of trans children who were recruited from an anti trans website is not accepted as good science not because of glaring methodological issues, but due to an American medical establishment conspiracy wedded to "affirmative care" for unknown reasons?
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
I do not know what has caused this marked increase. Research into it should not be seen as taking sides in the surrounding political debate, or invalidating the experiences of the girls/young women involved. I would hope research would lead to better health services for them.
Generally speaking, if there is a marked increase in a condition or demand for a particular healthcare service (within a particular demographic or more broadly), it makes sense to ask why, and to do research into the matter if the answer isn't obvious. That is true whether we're talking about gender dysphoria, impetigo or lung cancer.
If you are able to convince someone suffering from anorexia to come to terms with their body image, are you "invalidating their experience"?
The social contagion we're seeing among young girls at the moment is similar, but too many people are unable to see it for what it is because it would invalidate their ideology.
If you are able to convince someone suffering from anorexia to come to terms with their body image, are you "invalidating their experience"? No.
The evidence for social contagion around gender dysphoria is poor. Studies have found against the hypothesis, notably https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext That said, I think the role of social contagion in many phenomena is underestimated. Further research would be valuable.
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
Wowsers.
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
There are plenty of Remainers still Conservative MPs Jeremy Hunt, Greg Clarke, Matt Hancock, Jeremy Wright, Theresa May, Liz Truss, David Mundell, Alex Chalk etc were all allowed to stand again by CCHQ even under Boris. Only MPs who refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or Brexit Deal or No Deal were deselected.
Even Cameron kept IDS as a parliamentary candidate, Starmer has even deselected Corbyn, his predecessor as party leader in whose Shadow Cabinet he served.
If activists and councillors on the left who keep Labour going in opposition (as activists and councillors on the right keep the Conservatives going in opposition) are all prevented from standing in parliamentary seats that is not a healthy future for the party longer term if they are all replaced by centrist careerists who will all scarper as soon as things get tough. To be fair Cameron had a few of those too, no names mentioned Louise Mensch
The problem is HY, if you had attended Labour Party branch meetings, as I used to, in the 1980s and 1990s you find that these normally middle class ideological morons have nothing to say of any practical application. They used to bang on about nuclear disarmament and doves of peace, they lost themselves in their Marxist purity, but would run a mile from the Soviet system they would be happy to impose on the rest of us. It's all very Animal Farm, and they would expect to be the pigs. Can you think of any practical use for the politics of Dickie Burgon or Laura Pidcock?
I am at the point where I don't care who wins the next general election, but if Jeremy Corbyn is going to be anywhere near the levers of power, one might as well stick with Braverman or Johnson.
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
My view is that gender is an illusion and requires a belief in 'who you really are' - what you might call a soul. It was popularised as a notion partly because some people are uncomfortable saying 'sex'. My belief is that we are nothing more than our bodies. If my body is male, I am male; if my body is female, I am female. The question of whether my soul's gender is the same as my body's sex doesn't come up because my belief is the former is imaginary. That deals with 99.99% of cases. There are the special cases - the likes of Caster Semenya - but even here it's largely clear which category to place her in. I don't know if that is the law's view!
So your view is that all transgender individuals are delusional ?
I think the rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria needs careful study (let alone "Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria where male rapists decide they're really women).
Historically the gender dysphoric had been the pre-pubescent and middle aged men.
The sudden substantial increase in pre- and pubescent teenage girls seeking treatment is poorly understood. While some argue that's down to greater acceptance of trans people, others fear that social media contagion may be playing a significant role. Helen Joyce notes that there had been negligible cases of teen anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong until one publicised case, then it exploded.
Puberty is a tough time for all, and when social media proposes simplistic solutions like "born in the wrong body" a lot can go wrong.
It's notable that many of the "progressive" European countries originally at the forefront of what is (mendaciously, in my view) labeled as "affirmative care" are rowing back and acknowledging this is still an experimental treatment.
The USA is increasingly becoming an outlier on this - the WSJ published an op-ed on puberty blockers:
Gender-affirming care for children involves the use of “puberty blockers”: one of five powerful synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved those medications to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, certain types of infertility and a rare childhood disease caused by a genetic mutation. But it has never approved them for gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the belief that one’s body is the wrong sex.
Thus the drugs, led by AbbVie’s Lupron, are prescribed to minors “off label.” (They are also used off-label for chemical castration of repeat sex offenders.)
There is no such things as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. To quote Wikipedia: "ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association".
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
There was a marked increase in lefthandedness after lefthanded people stop being beaten at school. Maybe the reduction (although this is changing due reactionary politicians) of the policing in women’s bodies and enforcement of gender roles and the general greater acceptance of listening to people afab about their lives means people are taking them seriously. Typically only amab people had the freedom (due to society viewing them as male) to seek gender affirming medicine.
I do not know what has caused this marked increase. Research into it should not be seen as taking sides in the surrounding political debate, or invalidating the experiences of the girls/young women involved. I would hope research would lead to better health services for them.
Generally speaking, if there is a marked increase in a condition or demand for a particular healthcare service (within a particular demographic or more broadly), it makes sense to ask why, and to do research into the matter if the answer isn't obvious. That is true whether we're talking about gender dysphoria, impetigo or lung cancer.
If you are able to convince someone suffering from anorexia to come to terms with their body image, are you "invalidating their experience"?
The social contagion we're seeing among young girls at the moment is similar, but too many people are unable to see it for what it is because it would invalidate their ideology.
Anorexia is well understood as a medical issue - so is being trans. They are different things. Indeed, if medicine is about harm reduction (do no harm) then the evidence is clear why we affirm transpeople in their healthcare and don't with anorexic people, or suicidal people; one set of treatment shows it reduces harm (the number of transpeople killing themselves) and the other treatment literally does harm (killing themselves).
Typically, cutting off a person's leg increases harm. But if a leg has an infection that would kill you due to blood poisoning or whatever and a doctor recommends amputation it isn't because they are in the pocket of "big amputation", it's because it reduces harm. (And before you suggest that we should validate the logic of people who feel they should have amputations due to body dysmorphia, again, the research actually shows that validating that original harm does not treat the original feelings, whereas gender dysphoria becomes manageable when transpeople are allowed to transition!)
How does someone go about proving they are gay? We have a whole history of oppression against LGB people where the argument was “this is unnatural / against biology”, “this can’t be real / you’re making it up”, “why would you want to live this lifestyle”, “this is just to prey on innocent children” etc.
These same arguments are now thrown at transpeople. I would argue the evidence that LGBT people exist is that people say they have these experiences: men say they are attracted to men, women to women, either to either, and people assigned a gender at birth recognise the incongruity to that assignment to how they experience their own selves - regardless of the societal norms for genders! What they want is to conform to the societal view of their understood gender so as not feel that incongruency acutely (dysphoria) or to be harmed by a society than enforces strict gender roles based on presentation.
You cannot prove that I am “biologically” attracted to people of all genders (I am bi / pan). You cannot “biologically” prove you are straight, or gay, or lesbian. Self ID is all there is. It is the same for gender, and especially so for transpeople.
We know (due to unethical studies in the days when medicine did that) that if you give cispeople cross sex hormones, they don’t like it - they start feeling dysphoric. Many cispeople are uncomfortable presenting in gender nonconforming ways - either because it “just feels wrong” or due to the expectation of societal push back. There is no “biological” reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, or make up, or high heels - no “biological” reason why women shouldn’t have short or no hair, should have noticeable breasts, or not be able to be topless in public. But society deems it so, because society creates gender norms. And gender norms are the only thing we can police, because people do not see your “biological sex” when you are just out and about in the world - only your gender.
Being gay doesn't affect anyone else. If you're in a consensual relationship with someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, doesn't affect anyone else.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
Look at Sean F’s post about men wanting to buy wedding dresses and the immediate assumption that was some kind of fetishistic desire. Society does police gender norms - I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but that is what happens. That’s why many transpeople feel the need to “pass”.
Also, go back to anti LGB arguments made 20, 30, 40 years ago and see how people made the argument that being openly gay really does impact other people (like “devalues their marriage” etc.) Again, I view it as insincere garbage; but the argument was made.
My instinctive response is that it's the policing of gender norms that is the problem, and the idea that people would have major surgery and a lifetime of taking cross-sex hormones, because the policing of gender norms made them feel that they didn't fit in, is frankly barbaric.
Now, I've seen documentaries about adults who have surgery to more closely resemble cats, and that doesn't make much sense to me either, but an adult has liberty to do what they care to do to their own body. I don't think we should necessarily be in the business of recognising them as legally a cat, or allowing this sort of surgery to happen to children.
Transitioning is certainly something only over 18s should be allowed to do. I'd add a very strong inclination to sperm freezing too for M -> F transition, (I don't know if fertility is affected the other way) but the oestrogen will likely render natal males sterile. And kids are something you may well change your mind about decades after transitioning.
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
Wowsers.
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
There are plenty of Remainers still Conservative MPs Jeremy Hunt, Greg Clarke, Matt Hancock, Jeremy Wright, Theresa May, Liz Truss, David Mundell, Alex Chalk etc were all allowed to stand again by CCHQ even under Boris. Only MPs who refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or Brexit Deal or No Deal were deselected.
Even Cameron kept IDS as a parliamentary candidate, Starmer has even deselected Corbyn, his predecessor as party leader in whose Shadow Cabinet he served.
If activists and councillors on the left who keep Labour going in opposition (as activists and councillors on the right keep the Conservatives going in opposition) are all prevented from standing in parliamentary seats that is not a healthy future for the party longer term if they are all replaced by centrist careerists who will all scarper as soon as things get tough. To be fair Cameron had a few of those too, no names mentioned Louise Mensch
The problem is HY, if you had attended Labour Party branch meetings, as I used to, in the 1980s and 1990s you find that these normally middle class ideological morons have nothing to say of any practical application. They used to bang on about nuclear disarmament and doves of peace, they lost themselves in their Marxist purity, but would run a mile from the Soviet system they would be happy to impose on the rest of us. It's all very Animal Farm, and they would expect to be the pigs. Can you think of any practical use for the politics of Dickie Burgon or Laura Pidcock?
I am at the point where I don't care who wins the next general election, but if Jeremy Corbyn is going to be anywhere near the levers of power, one might as well stick with Braverman or Johnson.
I am not saying Starmer needs to put Corbyn back in the Shadow Cabinet but to all intents and purposes he is a good constituency MP but has been deselected from even standing again for Labour in Islington North (albeit may run as an Independent instead now)
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
Wowsers.
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
There are plenty of Remainers still Conservative MPs Jeremy Hunt, Greg Clarke, Matt Hancock, Jeremy Wright, Theresa May, Liz Truss, David Mundell, Alex Chalk etc were all allowed to stand again by CCHQ even under Boris. Only MPs who refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or Brexit Deal or No Deal were deselected.
Even Cameron kept IDS as a parliamentary candidate, Starmer has even deselected Corbyn, his predecessor as party leader in whose Shadow Cabinet he served.
If activists and councillors on the left who keep Labour going in opposition (as activists and councillors on the right keep the Conservatives going in opposition) are all prevented from standing in parliamentary seats that is not a healthy future for the party longer term if they are all replaced by centrist careerists who will all scarper as soon as things get tough. To be fair Cameron had a few of those too, no names mentioned Louise Mensch
The problem is HY, if you had attended Labour Party branch meetings, as I used to, in the 1980s and 1990s you find that these normally middle class ideological morons have nothing to say of any practical application. They used to bang on about nuclear disarmament and doves of peace, they lost themselves in their Marxist purity, but would run a mile from the Soviet system they would be happy to impose on the rest of us. It's all very Animal Farm, and they would expect to be the pigs. Can you think of any practical use for the politics of Dickie Burgon or Laura Pidcock?
I am at the point where I don't care who wins the next general election, but if Jeremy Corbyn is going to be anywhere near the levers of power, one might as well stick with Braverman or Johnson.
Yes - comedy. Also me referring to the Laura as "Laura Pillock" got me suspended briefly from the Labour Party which set in motion my departure. So she did the world at least one favour.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm just curious. Can anyone point to a case where a criminal offence has been facilitated (in any practical way) by the perpetrator claiming to be trans?
'@TrumpWarRoom · 13h I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
I would if people weren't arguing for legislation that would ostracise my friends and family from public life. If sex is defined by how some people have argued here (SRY interactions) and toilets should be sex segregated spaces (by that definition) - friends and family I know who are trans or generally gender non conforming would have to chose between feeling safe at work, in pubs, in restaurants, in any public space with a bathroom or never leave the house, give themselves UTIs / impacted bowels and other illnesses because they refuse to use public bathrooms, because people would deem their usage of those spaces unacceptable. Because there is no way to tell at a glance what an individuals SRY interactions are, but people will see "a man in a dress" or "a girl in trousers" or a lesbian who is "a man" or an effeminate gay man who is "a girl" and act on that, with the protection of legislation possibly.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm just curious. Can anyone point to a case where a criminal offence has been facilitated (in any practical way) by the perpetrator claiming to be trans?
I assumed the original post meant "facilitated (in any practical way) by the perpetrator FALSELY claiming to be trans". I would say Karen White is not "claiming" to be trans, she just is trans.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm just curious. Can anyone point to a case where a criminal offence has been facilitated (in any practical way) by the perpetrator claiming to be trans?
To defend BJO a little, the banning of Jamie Driscoll from seeking re-election to North of Tyne is the very worst kind of political McCarthyism.
He represents the left of the party, is backed by the cranks, but hasn't shown any real sign of being one himself. And the cranks McDonnell et al - are still Labour MPs having not been banned themselves.
And so here we are - antisemitism is the Labour kyptonite. Jezbollah so damaged the party that anyone who goes anywhere near the "what Antisemitism it was all a scam" crowd" is seen as a potential stick to beat the party with. It's silly, its unfair, but it is a direct result of "there was no AS / AS was a conspiracy / Jezza was framed" narrative that the cranks still peddle even today.
C'est La Vie.
'The rapid decline of the Labour Left since 2019 has been astonishing. Earlier this year, Labour announced that under no circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn stand as Labour’s candidate in his Islington North seat at the next election. At the same time, of the 123 new Labour candidates so far chosen to stand in vacated or target seats, only two are firmly on the Left: Faiza Shaheen, an economist who will again challenge Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Chris Webb in Blackpool South. Under Starmer, the party apparatus has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop Left-wingers from getting on to the longlist. And in many cases, the victims are trades unionists and socialists whose politics — like Driscoll’s — are not exactly Corbynite. This week, l learnt of two would-be MPs in north Lancashire who have just been told by party officials that there is no point in applying as they will be excluded at the “due diligence stage.' https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=6f43f88c9c&mc_eid=4bd8087faf
Funnily enough the rapid decline of the Conservative Party is far more astonishing and something you and others still are in total denial of.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
Yet as BJO confirms the Conservatives never isolated the right of the party as Starmer has so isolated the Labour left.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
Wowsers.
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
There are plenty of Remainers still Conservative MPs Jeremy Hunt, Greg Clarke, Matt Hancock, Jeremy Wright, Theresa May, Liz Truss, David Mundell, Alex Chalk etc were all allowed to stand again by CCHQ even under Boris. Only MPs who refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or Brexit Deal or No Deal were deselected.
Even Cameron kept IDS as a parliamentary candidate, Starmer has even deselected Corbyn, his predecessor as party leader in whose Shadow Cabinet he served.
If activists and councillors on the left who keep Labour going in opposition (as activists and councillors on the right keep the Conservatives going in opposition) are all prevented from standing in parliamentary seats that is not a healthy future for the party longer term if they are all replaced by centrist careerists who will all scarper as soon as things get tough. To be fair Cameron had a few of those too, no names mentioned Louise Mensch
The problem is HY, if you had attended Labour Party branch meetings, as I used to, in the 1980s and 1990s you find that these normally middle class ideological morons have nothing to say of any practical application. They used to bang on about nuclear disarmament and doves of peace, they lost themselves in their Marxist purity, but would run a mile from the Soviet system they would be happy to impose on the rest of us. It's all very Animal Farm, and they would expect to be the pigs. Can you think of any practical use for the politics of Dickie Burgon or Laura Pidcock?
I am at the point where I don't care who wins the next general election, but if Jeremy Corbyn is going to be anywhere near the levers of power, one might as well stick with Braverman or Johnson.
Yes - comedy. Also me referring to the Laura as "Laura Pillock" got me suspended briefly from the Labour Party which set in motion my departure. So she did the world at least one favour.
That's another thing. They are happy to blow the whistle and brandish the red card, but when the boot is on the other foot they whine like Ned Beatty in Deliverance.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm just curious. Can anyone point to a case where a criminal offence has been facilitated (in any practical way) by the perpetrator claiming to be trans?
I assumed the original post meant "facilitated (in any practical way) by the perpetrator FALSELY claiming to be trans". I would say Karen White is not "claiming" to be trans, she just is trans.
Comments
"No, we won't. We will have an aspiration to do X in the third year..."
Is good politics how?
Clown troupe.
Thankfully the sport itsef seems to be so robust that it can somehow survive any attempt at sabbotaging the rules.
(Warning - there is some spectacularly misogynistic, homophonic and racist language at the link below. Don’t click if offended)
Revenge! US firm releases former partners' sexist, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic emails
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/revenge-us-firm-releases-former-partners-sexist-racist-anti-semitic-homophobic-emails
I presume you’re new to this politics thing.
Non-policies written in crayon to pander to Golliwog fans. Massive corruption with His brother and now dad heading for gongs and billions of our money grifted into certain people's back pockets for no return. Immorality so bad that the head of the Conservative Party at Prayer himself has to stridently condemn it in the Other Place.
None of that bothers you. Yet you point at the spec in the eye of others and shout.
I am never going back to fucking Cincinnati in my life. Their ballpark tried to tell me this sandwich was a “local delicacy”. They can go to hell.
https://twitter.com/cooperlund/status/1666806641558425600?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
The current state of the veneration of free speech rests very much on twentieth century jurisprudence - and owes much to the evolution of Oliver Wendell Holmes' beliefs on the subject, culminating in his great dissent in the 1919 case Abrams v. United States.
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas... . The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
And note also the growing nostalgia in the Republican party for the Comstock Laws of the nineteenth century.
Whomever would do that...
I was trying to avoid bringing that awkward elephant in the room - the brain - into into it.
I've always considered psychiatry to be a branch of medicine that is a century behind the more physical stuff. Hence the need to classify and reclassify everything.
I know I'm being less than logical. Apologies. My brain still struggles with the concept that any female can be herosexual despite being an evolutionary advantage.
Still, Physics is still groping with some quantum theories so it's in good company.
Sadly the idiots have a lockhold on much of British public debate.
It would have been better not to make the "28 billion in year 1" pledge in the first place, but Starmer doesn't have a time machine any more than anyone else.
(Even if the money was available without spooking the markets, which it might not be, phasing it in could be smarter. One of the problems with public services in the noughties was having more cash suddenly thrown at them than they had capacity to spend efficiently.)
Poor politics, but not disastrous government. Any any pledge before the manifesto is at least a bit provisional.
Even Cameron's A List of CCHQ approved Parliamentary candidates of liberals and 'modernisers' pre 2010 didn't ostracise experienced and hardworking rightwing Conservative activists and councillors as much as the NEC has ostracised experienced and hardworking Labour activists and councillors from standing for Parliament for the party.
Same for Blair who kept Benn, Skinner and Prescott in his tent despite big ideological differences with them
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/
Can't quite bring it to mind.
Indeed, it’s the only way out of British stagnation.
The Truss lesson was rather that borrowing for tax cuts, with no plan to repay, is not credible.
There is a marked increase in teenage girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Yes, this warrants research.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1667122845791539200?s=20
Boris purged the left of the party. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine. Former Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Phillip Hammond. Winston Churchill's Grandson. Stewart. Soubry. Gauke. Gymah.
That you have the hypocrisy to claim that only Labour have purged their party and that the Tories remain a broad church is comedy gold, even for you.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202304/what-is-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria
It could be that gender dysphoria is the root of the mental health issues these teens are experiencing. It can take time to diagnose some psychological disorders properly; bipolar disorder, for example, can easily be misidentified as depression at first. However, in the case of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, patients may get diagnoses from untrained amateurs with a political agenda rather than trained professionals with expertise in the field.
Being trans doesn't affect anyone else either, when it comes to pronouns etc, but does when it comes to safeguarding. When it comes to safeguarding, there needs to be a sensible balance of risk, that's what safeguarding is all about.
I'm rather concerned what do you mean about conforming though, because there's no such thing. There is no right way to be a man or a boy, and there is no right way to be a woman or a girl.
A boy who's interested in playing with dolls isn't suffering any form of dysphoria, they're simply a boy playing with dolls.
A girl who is a 'tomboy' or would rather play football or with Meccano than with dolls or make up similarly is not doing anything wrong for a girl, they're simply a girl with those interests.
The idea that if you're non-conformist then you are x, y or z is a terrible attitude. We are all individuals, we are all non-conformist in our own ways. Within reason and the law, any girl is free to have any interests they choose, ditto any boy, ditto any man or woman.
I mostly think she’s harmful to the mission of slowing climate change with her apocalyptic hyperbole, but she’s done a helpful thing here.
It's fascinating that much of the power of the First Amendment rests on a dissent - though the 1927 Brandeis opinion, this time with the majority, in Whiteney v. California is a reinforcing, much cited, even broader view:
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Forgive me you'll have to expand that acronym.
American sources. End of debate.
https://order-order.com/2023/06/09/breaking-labour-suspend-shadow-minister-bambos-charalambous/
https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-exists
Even Cameron kept IDS as a parliamentary candidate, Starmer has even deselected Corbyn, his predecessor as party leader in whose Shadow Cabinet he served.
If activists and councillors on the left who keep Labour going in opposition (as activists and councillors on the right keep the Conservatives going in opposition) are all prevented from standing in parliamentary seats that is not a healthy future for the party longer term if they are all replaced by centrist careerists who will all scarper as soon as things get tough. To be fair Cameron had a few of those too, no names mentioned Louise Mensch
Now, there are competing explanations for that:
A They're autistic, don't fit in, GD is an explanation that they seek - they're not misfits, they're just trapped in the wrong body
B They really are male inside, autism traits (and who knows, maybe autism itself) being related to that
and, related:
A Higher profile of trans issues and trans people has made more people with other issues think they are trans
B Higher profile of trans issues and trans people has made more people who are trans confident enough to say so
The change in natal females is certainly striking - there has been much less of a change for natal males. There isn't really an A or B supporting explanation that is convincing for the sudden natal female increase rather than a more uniform increase across natal sexes. Unfortunately, I think we're flying blind here - there isn't yet really the evidence or the time required to differentiate between any of the above explanations. And it's complicated by the fact that even if A is true, there are also people who really are trans and even if B is true there are also people who have other issues and are just confused teenagers/children.
All of which (the lack of good evidence) really sucks if you're a child with GD or a parent of a child with GD at present. It would at least help if more people on the extremes would recognise that no one really knows and most people are trying to do their best.
Generally speaking, if there is a marked increase in a condition or demand for a particular healthcare service (within a particular demographic or more broadly), it makes sense to ask why, and to do research into the matter if the answer isn't obvious. That is true whether we're talking about gender dysphoria, impetigo or lung cancer.
Also, go back to anti LGB arguments made 20, 30, 40 years ago and see how people made the argument that being openly gay really does impact other people (like “devalues their marriage” etc.) Again, I view it as insincere garbage; but the argument was made.
Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, especially in the US. But some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/gender-dysphoria-in-young-people-is-rising-and-so-is-professional-disagreement/
"No Debate!"
"Science is Settled!"
The first Ukrainian M2A2 Bradley ODS-SA IFV was destroyed by the Russian army in #Zaporizhzhia Oblast.
Three more Bradleys, a Leopard 2A6 tank and a BMR-2 armored demining equipment can be seen damaged and abandoned nearby..
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1667152519464714240
Some more Ukranian losses (some questionable identification, too).
https://twitter.com/200_zoka/status/1667152183593238530
It does talk about a rise in children and adolescents identifying as transgender. No-one in this discussion has disputed that.
EXCLUSIVE: “As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t.” CNN has the transcript of bombshell recording of Trump claiming to have secret information.
https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCNN/status/1667140249904922624
If you're reinforcing those norms and saying anyone non-conformist is "in the wrong body" rather than simply has different interests, then I think that is very demeaning to the individual concerned. There's nothing wrong with them, they just have different interests - that doesn't make them a different sex or gender.
Yes "devalues their marriage" was bullshit and called out as bullshit at the time. Same as people objecting to "them" as a pronoun is bullshit today, or objecting to people changing names is bullshit today.
Plenty of bullshit exists. Where safeguarding is real, that needs to be taken seriously though.
If someone who's been through male puberty wants to do competitive female sport, or if someone who has used their penis to rape a woman wants to be sent to a female prison block, then yes we need to take those concerns seriously rather than say it is insincere garbage.
Now, I've seen documentaries about adults who have surgery to more closely resemble cats, and that doesn't make much sense to me either, but an adult has liberty to do what they care to do to their own body. I don't think we should necessarily be in the business of recognising them as legally a cat, or allowing this sort of surgery to happen to children.
Also Driscoll is a genuine home grown political talent. He has an interesting backstory and he holds actual opinions.
Instead of nurturing a future northern heavy weight he has been shafted.
The point is nobody knows and ROGD has as much going for it as "affirmative care". Both are consistent with the (very) limited evidence.
Only one of the hypotheses is making irreversible changes to children's bodies.
My client was under no obligation to enter into such a transaction. To have had men trying on the wedding dresses in the shop would have caused discomfort to her, her staff and female customers (the vast majority).
Curiously, none of the men in question ever sued her for sex discrimination
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p07d5yh3/adam-curtis-shorts-living-in-an-unreal-world
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/youtuber-blaire-white-reveals-why-shes-not-a-parent-yet-in-new-video.html/
Equally, what do those who argue "puberty blockers are experimental drugs and should not be used without further research" actually mean in practical terms ?
There are serious issues of consent involved, which no one has really appeared to address.
Safeguarding is where there is a risk. There is no evidence that transwomen, for example, commit sexual assault at the same rate as cismen, or more so than ciswomen. So the safeguarding need is, in some circumstances, to protect women from people (typically cismen) who are known to or accused of sexual assault or violence. Which I would say doesn't typically require sex segregated spaces and, where it potentially does, would be about removing cismen from spaces.
I still don't really understand the sports issue. Michael Phelps is, by all standards, a biological freak of nature. Just because he is cis that means it is fine for him to compete against other cismen. Whereas ciswomen who have testosterone levels within the levels you might find in a ciswoman are disqualified from running due to rules aimed at trans athletes. Sports is, by definition, unfair. Like, you are rewarding the better athlete either because they have more resources to dedicate time to training (which is why sports used to be the purview of the rich, and why men are typically advantaged over women because patriarchy considered men more suited to physical activity and therefore sports) and biological variance (see Michael Phelps). You could have non gendered segregated sports but have, say, weight classes or economic considerations which would be fairer than current methods used.
·
13h
I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE & A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1666962177213845504?s=20
https://twitter.com/realGulDukat/status/1665902636992811008
ALSO, ADMIRAL PICARD HAD DATAPADS, AND WON IN COURT MARSHAL. CROOKED BURNHAM DELETED 33,000 FILES ON SPORE DRIVE, MANY CLASSIFIED, AND WASN’T EVEN CLOSE TO BEING CHARGED! ONLY DUKAT - THE GREATEST PAH-WRAITH HUNT OF ALL TIME!
https://twitter.com/realGulDukat/status/1665903126677794817
The social contagion we're seeing among young girls at the moment is similar, but too many people are unable to see it for what it is because it would invalidate their ideology.
-- Donald Trump August 18, 2016
https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1667118247064346626
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/09/shadow-minister-bambos-charalambous-suspended-from-labour?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
And your position is that the paper that relies on the testimony of parents of trans children who were recruited from an anti trans website is not accepted as good science not because of glaring methodological issues, but due to an American medical establishment conspiracy wedded to "affirmative care" for unknown reasons?
The evidence for social contagion around gender dysphoria is poor. Studies have found against the hypothesis, notably https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext That said, I think the role of social contagion in many phenomena is underestimated. Further research would be valuable.
I am at the point where I don't care who wins the next general election, but if Jeremy Corbyn is going to be anywhere near the levers of power, one might as well stick with Braverman or Johnson.
Typically, cutting off a person's leg increases harm. But if a leg has an infection that would kill you due to blood poisoning or whatever and a doctor recommends amputation it isn't because they are in the pocket of "big amputation", it's because it reduces harm. (And before you suggest that we should validate the logic of people who feel they should have amputations due to body dysmorphia, again, the research actually shows that validating that original harm does not treat the original feelings, whereas gender dysphoria becomes manageable when transpeople are allowed to transition!)
Move on.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
The comments are hilarious. But harsh. Cincinnati has many problems but I’ve been in worse places in the USA