“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
I could rip you to shreds on this topic ref .
Be my guest. Although I note you could provide no proof of misogyny.
But I reject gender identify as a premise, much in the same way I reject religion and having to choose a favourite football team.
Technically there's a difference between "rejecting religion" and "rejecting religion as a premise". It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God", and another to say "There is no such thing as a belief in God". Many people believe in God (or gods, or variations thereof) and rejection of the concept of a God will not change that.
(Plus, of course, God believes in you)
Perhaps loosely phrased originally but the analogy works:
- I don't believe in gender identity, and don't identify with any gender. I respect others' freedom to believe in gender identity and on that basis choose whichever gender they wish.
- I don't believe in God, and don't identify with any religion. I respect others' freedom to believe in God and on that basis choose whichever religion they wish.
Note however RefUK on 5-7% in most polls and most of their voters will be Boris supporters. Indeed Sunak now leaking more to RefUK than Starmer is to the Greens with RefUK ahead of the Greens in 3/4 of the last polls in the table.
So Sunak realised he could not afford to alienate Johnson supporters too much in the report vote too much and abstained even if the vast majority of Tory MPs also did not vote against it either so as not to offend centrist voters too much
This Welsh poll is high for RefUK
Wales Westminster VI (17-18 June):
Labour 43% (–) Conservatives 22% (-1) Reform UK 12% (+3) Plaid Cymru 10% (-1) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Green 4% (–) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 14-15 May
12% RefUK in Wales astonishingly high yes and even above Plaid and the LDs, same as UKIP got UK wide in 2015 and almost the same as the 13% UKIP received in Wales in 2015
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
I could rip you to shreds on this topic ref. both your limited and reductionist pseudo-scientific comprehension of the complexities of sex and muddled views about gender but:
1. This isn't the right place. It's a political forum and, with respect to you, this
2. Is of very little relevance to the vast majority of people, most of whom don't rub shoulders with either trans male to females or trans females to males (remarkably absent from discussions by the anti-woke Right I note)
3. I have little desire, as a woman, to debate with irate old men like you who seem to think they know what a woman is but whose other views usually reveal them to be out-and-out misogynists.
This may raise its head in a GE campaign but it will do so for the barest moment. It's a clear sign to me that the Conservatives are losing. We had all this nonsense before in a different guise under John Major with his Back to Basics bullshit.
Your 1997 awaits.
Embarrassing stuff. What are the relevant complexities of sex?
A slightly misleading headline. The commission had proposed a total ban on electronic surveillance on journalists under criminal investigation, which would be going way too far.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
I could rip you to shreds on this topic ref. both your limited and reductionist pseudo-scientific comprehension of the complexities of sex and muddled views about gender but:
1. This isn't the right place. It's a political forum and, with respect to you, this
2. Is of very little relevance to the vast majority of people, most of whom don't rub shoulders with either trans male to females or trans females to males (remarkably absent from discussions by the anti-woke Right I note)
3. I have little desire, as a woman, to debate with irate old men like you who seem to think they know what a woman is but whose other views usually reveal them to be out-and-out misogynists.
This may raise its head in a GE campaign but it will do so for the barest moment. It's a clear sign to me that the Conservatives are losing. We had all this nonsense before in a different guise under John Major with his Back to Basics bullshit.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see towards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
Note however RefUK on 5-7% in most polls and most of their voters will be Boris supporters. Indeed Sunak now leaking more to RefUK than Starmer is to the Greens with RefUK ahead of the Greens in 3/4 of the last polls in the table.
So Sunak realised he could not afford to alienate Johnson supporters too much in the report vote too much and abstained even if the vast majority of Tory MPs also did not vote against it either so as not to offend centrist voters too much
This Welsh poll is high for RefUK
Wales Westminster VI (17-18 June):
Labour 43% (–) Conservatives 22% (-1) Reform UK 12% (+3) Plaid Cymru 10% (-1) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Green 4% (–) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 14-15 May
12% RefUK in Wales astonishingly high yes and even above Plaid and the LDs, same as UKIP got UK wide in 2015 and almost the same as the 13% UKIP received in Wales in 2015
But comparable to (below) their 2016 assembly result.
"Sixty-six percent of registered voters think Biden is too old to be president and 59 percent have doubts about his mental fitness, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted last week."
"Biden is a weak candidate against almost any Republican, including Trump, and he’s probably even weaker with Kamala Harris as his running mate."
Had Bobby Kennedy not been shot he not Humphrey would likely have been Democratic nominee in 1968 and he would probably have beaten Nixon then to win the Presidency. Could Robert Kennedy Jnr do what his father narrowly missed, remember LBJ like Biden was at one stage hoping to run again as incumbent President
Even of primary Kennedy supporters they are supporting him because they know little about him beyond his family name. Only 12% of his own supporters go for his views/policies with 4% going for would do a good job, vs combined 57% for family connections/want to know more/is a democrat/would consider any candidate.
What is the main reason you would consider supporEng Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? [OPEN-END] May 17-20, 2023 Kennedy name/Family connecaons 20% Do not know enough/Want to learn more 17% Support his views/policies 12% Would consider any candidate/Open-minded 10% Is a Democrat/Not a Republican 10% Qualified/Has poliacal experience 7% Support any Democrat over Trump/Is not Trump 5% Not Biden/Alternaave to Biden 4% Would do a good job/Is a good leader 4% Environmental posiaons/Climate 4% Could win 3% Someone new/Fresh face/Fresh ideas 3% Age/Younger 3% Could step in if Biden unable 1% Other 9% No opinion 8%
If he combines fans of the Kennedy brand with leftwingers who voted for Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primaries, he could yet run Biden close.
Not only Bobby Kennedy under LBJ's Presidency in 1968 but Ted Kennedy too v Carter in 1980 shows Kennedys are not afraid of challenging incumbent Democratic Presidents. Ted Kennedy also backed Obama in 2008 v establishment frontrunner Hillary Clinton
Bonkers. He would have more chance in the Republican primary.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
I could rip you to shreds on this topic ref. both your limited and reductionist pseudo-scientific comprehension of the complexities of sex and muddled views about gender but:
1. This isn't the right place. It's a political forum and, with respect to you, this
2. Is of very little relevance to the vast majority of people, most of whom don't rub shoulders with either trans male to females or trans females to males (remarkably absent from discussions by the anti-woke Right I note)
3. I have little desire, as a woman, to debate with irate old men like you who seem to think they know what a woman is but whose other views usually reveal them to be out-and-out misogynists.
This may raise its head in a GE campaign but it will do so for the barest moment. It's a clear sign to me that the Conservatives are losing. We had all this nonsense before in a different guise under John Major with his Back to Basics bullshit.
Your 1997 awaits.
Embarrassing stuff. What are the relevant complexities of sex?
"Sixty-six percent of registered voters think Biden is too old to be president and 59 percent have doubts about his mental fitness, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted last week."
"Biden is a weak candidate against almost any Republican, including Trump, and he’s probably even weaker with Kamala Harris as his running mate."
Had Bobby Kennedy not been shot he not Humphrey would likely have been Democratic nominee in 1968 and he would probably have beaten Nixon then to win the Presidency. Could Robert Kennedy Jnr do what his father narrowly missed, remember LBJ like Biden was at one stage hoping to run again as incumbent President
Even of primary Kennedy supporters they are supporting him because they know little about him beyond his family name. Only 12% of his own supporters go for his views/policies with 4% going for would do a good job, vs combined 57% for family connections/want to know more/is a democrat/would consider any candidate.
What is the main reason you would consider supporEng Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? [OPEN-END] May 17-20, 2023 Kennedy name/Family connecaons 20% Do not know enough/Want to learn more 17% Support his views/policies 12% Would consider any candidate/Open-minded 10% Is a Democrat/Not a Republican 10% Qualified/Has poliacal experience 7% Support any Democrat over Trump/Is not Trump 5% Not Biden/Alternaave to Biden 4% Would do a good job/Is a good leader 4% Environmental posiaons/Climate 4% Could win 3% Someone new/Fresh face/Fresh ideas 3% Age/Younger 3% Could step in if Biden unable 1% Other 9% No opinion 8%
If he combines fans of the Kennedy brand with leftwingers who voted for Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primaries, he could yet run Biden close.
Not only Bobby Kennedy under LBJ's Presidency in 1968 but Ted Kennedy too v Carter in 1980 shows Kennedys are not afraid of challenging incumbent Democratic Presidents. Ted Kennedy also backed Obama in 2008 v establishment frontrunner Hillary Clinton
Bonkers. He would have more chance in the Republican primary.
He is bonkers, yes.
And I hope he has no chance in any primary. Even Trump isn't quite as bad as he is.
"Sixty-six percent of registered voters think Biden is too old to be president and 59 percent have doubts about his mental fitness, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted last week."
"Biden is a weak candidate against almost any Republican, including Trump, and he’s probably even weaker with Kamala Harris as his running mate."
Had Bobby Kennedy not been shot he not Humphrey would likely have been Democratic nominee in 1968 and he would probably have beaten Nixon then to win the Presidency. Could Robert Kennedy Jnr do what his father narrowly missed, remember LBJ like Biden was at one stage hoping to run again as incumbent President
Even of primary Kennedy supporters they are supporting him because they know little about him beyond his family name. Only 12% of his own supporters go for his views/policies with 4% going for would do a good job, vs combined 57% for family connections/want to know more/is a democrat/would consider any candidate.
What is the main reason you would consider supporEng Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? [OPEN-END] May 17-20, 2023 Kennedy name/Family connecaons 20% Do not know enough/Want to learn more 17% Support his views/policies 12% Would consider any candidate/Open-minded 10% Is a Democrat/Not a Republican 10% Qualified/Has poliacal experience 7% Support any Democrat over Trump/Is not Trump 5% Not Biden/Alternaave to Biden 4% Would do a good job/Is a good leader 4% Environmental posiaons/Climate 4% Could win 3% Someone new/Fresh face/Fresh ideas 3% Age/Younger 3% Could step in if Biden unable 1% Other 9% No opinion 8%
If he combines fans of the Kennedy brand with leftwingers who voted for Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primaries, he could yet run Biden close.
Not only Bobby Kennedy under LBJ's Presidency in 1968 but Ted Kennedy too v Carter in 1980 shows Kennedys are not afraid of challenging incumbent Democratic Presidents. Ted Kennedy also backed Obama in 2008 v establishment frontrunner Hillary Clinton
Bonkers. He would have more chance in the Republican primary.
The prognostications of doom re: inflation and interest rates seem to getting worse by the day now. BoE may well jack up the base rate another 0.5% tomorrow, with little to suggest that it will do much good.
Imagine if we go into 2024 with late Seventies-style interest rates and stagflation, AND an early Nineties-type property price crash and negative equity trap playing out at the same time. Absolute scenes.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
The questions should be the other way around. (1) In what circumstances can people be allowed to change their gender and (2) what should be the consequences of doing so?
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see towards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
But I reject gender identify as a premise, much in the same way I reject religion and having to choose a favourite football team.
Technically there's a difference between "rejecting religion" and "rejecting religion as a premise". It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God", and another to say "There is no such thing as a belief in God". Many people believe in God (or gods, or variations thereof) and rejection of the concept of a God will not change that.
(Plus, of course, God believes in you)
Perhaps loosely phrased originally but the analogy works:
- I don't believe in gender identity, and don't identify with any gender. I respect others' freedom to believe in gender identity and on that basis choose whichever gender they wish.
- I don't believe in God, and don't identify with any religion. I respect others' freedom to believe in God and on that basis choose whichever religion they wish.
BTW Darren Jones MP is doing really good work in the Business Select Committee holding the Post Office to account in a politely lethal way. A Labour MP to keep an eye on for the future I think.
Badenoch I see continues to be utterly feeble on this. Stupid woman.
"Sixty-six percent of registered voters think Biden is too old to be president and 59 percent have doubts about his mental fitness, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted last week."
"Biden is a weak candidate against almost any Republican, including Trump, and he’s probably even weaker with Kamala Harris as his running mate."
Had Bobby Kennedy not been shot he not Humphrey would likely have been Democratic nominee in 1968 and he would probably have beaten Nixon then to win the Presidency. Could Robert Kennedy Jnr do what his father narrowly missed, remember LBJ like Biden was at one stage hoping to run again as incumbent President
Even of primary Kennedy supporters they are supporting him because they know little about him beyond his family name. Only 12% of his own supporters go for his views/policies with 4% going for would do a good job, vs combined 57% for family connections/want to know more/is a democrat/would consider any candidate.
What is the main reason you would consider supporEng Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? [OPEN-END] May 17-20, 2023 Kennedy name/Family connecaons 20% Do not know enough/Want to learn more 17% Support his views/policies 12% Would consider any candidate/Open-minded 10% Is a Democrat/Not a Republican 10% Qualified/Has poliacal experience 7% Support any Democrat over Trump/Is not Trump 5% Not Biden/Alternaave to Biden 4% Would do a good job/Is a good leader 4% Environmental posiaons/Climate 4% Could win 3% Someone new/Fresh face/Fresh ideas 3% Age/Younger 3% Could step in if Biden unable 1% Other 9% No opinion 8%
If he combines fans of the Kennedy brand with leftwingers who voted for Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primaries, he could yet run Biden close.
Not only Bobby Kennedy under LBJ's Presidency in 1968 but Ted Kennedy too v Carter in 1980 shows Kennedys are not afraid of challenging incumbent Democratic Presidents. Ted Kennedy also backed Obama in 2008 v establishment frontrunner Hillary Clinton
Bonkers. He would have more chance in the Republican primary.
He is bonkers, yes.
And I hope he has no chance in any primary. Even Trump isn't quite as bad as he is.
Allow me to repeat, RFKJR is just another Trumpist electoral prank. As with Ye 2020.
For starters in 2023 designed to sprinkle a bit o' sand in the Biden 2024 campaign gas tank. NOT enough to disable or even close, but something to gun up the works.
For 2024 primaries and maybe beyond, aimed at taking small stripes off of Uncle Joe's hide.
Which in close state and/or national situation MIGHT be the racers edge.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see towards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
The questions should be the other way around. (1) In what circumstances can people be allowed to change their gender and (2) what should be the consequences of doing so?
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
“Cis” has not been banned.
'Cis' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
The questions should be the other way around. (1) In what circumstances can people be allowed to change their gender and (2) what should be the consequences of doing so?
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
@Cyclefree - your questions are boring deb soc stuff. Du jour, though.
@bondegezou - yeah, social constructs, but money is nonetheless a different kind of thing from ethnicity. "Gender" is just a notion about what sex a person is or can be. The notion that there are more than two sexes is factually wrong. Many notions are. The notions that there are only two genders, that together they can generate a new human (that's why they're called genders), and that having Y chromosomes means male and not having Y chromosomes means female, are all factually correct.
Sorry but there is such a thing as objective reality, even if official propaganda says that any given person's imagined truth is as objectively true as what anyone else thinks. Funny how the notion of psychosis hasn't been binned, then, but I digress.
The big question is none of this. It's as follows: why is this cultist garbage about "trans", given among other facts that only a TINY minority of people consider themselves transsexual or anything close to it, being pushed so much with so little opposition. And I can tell you that if Andrea Dworkin were alive she would tell you what the answer was.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
I could rip you to shreds on this topic ref. both your limited and reductionist pseudo-scientific comprehension of the complexities of sex and muddled views about gender but:
1. This isn't the right place. It's a political forum and, with respect to you, this
2. Is of very little relevance to the vast majority of people, most of whom don't rub shoulders with either trans male to females or trans females to males (remarkably absent from discussions by the anti-woke Right I note)
3. I have little desire, as a woman, to debate with irate old men like you who seem to think they know what a woman is but whose other views usually reveal them to be out-and-out misogynists.
This may raise its head in a GE campaign but it will do so for the barest moment. It's a clear sign to me that the Conservatives are losing. We had all this nonsense before in a different guise under John Major with his Back to Basics bullshit.
Your 1997 awaits.
You keep issuing cheques that cannot be cashed.
You proclaimed similar before and claimed to be an expert who had been a talking head on this. Ishmael challenged you, fairly, to a debate and you weaselled out and refused then.
The issue is political. It has an impact on politics.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see towards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
USCG update at 6pm our time was an Oscars acceptance speech masterpiece, but no hard info. Air expires tomorrow lunchtime.
They don't know where they are, they don't know how to get them back up, and they're running out of time.
Generally I try to be cheerful and make positive or funny responses on PB, but on this one it's just sad. I am very sad for those poor people, regardless of their wealth.
To days news is wall to wall financial crisis with the elephant in the room being Brexit. Now that Johnson has gone commentators and others seem much less restrained in mentioning the great unmentionable. There's hardly anyone still talking it up or even prepared to defend it.
Surely someone has got to mobilise the 17,000,000 (Now more likely to be 25,000,000) or they're going to get bounced around by this economic storm like everyone else and without even a loin cloth.
Time for someone with courage or ambition to go for it.
Personally, I have given up on the UK rejoining. I found it a lot easier to let my UK passport expire and just start using my Irish one.
So you are a citizen of the world.
I am a resident of the Hotel Boris Johnson, I can check out any time I like, but I can never leave.*
* With thanks to Don Henley, Don Felder and Glenn Frey.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
I could rip you to shreds on this topic ref. both your limited and reductionist pseudo-scientific comprehension of the complexities of sex and muddled views about gender but:
1. This isn't the right place. It's a political forum and, with respect to you, this
2. Is of very little relevance to the vast majority of people, most of whom don't rub shoulders with either trans male to females or trans females to males (remarkably absent from discussions by the anti-woke Right I note)
3. I have little desire, as a woman, to debate with irate old men like you who seem to think they know what a woman is but whose other views usually reveal them to be out-and-out misogynists.
This may raise its head in a GE campaign but it will do so for the barest moment. It's a clear sign to me that the Conservatives are losing. We had all this nonsense before in a different guise under John Major with his Back to Basics bullshit.
Your 1997 awaits.
You couldn't rip her to shreds; what you could do is lose your rag about it.
That's not the same thing: her posts on this subject are far more persuasive than yours.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
I could rip you to shreds on this topic ref. both your limited and reductionist pseudo-scientific comprehension of the complexities of sex and muddled views about gender but:
1. This isn't the right place. It's a political forum and, with respect to you, this
2. Is of very little relevance to the vast majority of people, most of whom don't rub shoulders with either trans male to females or trans females to males (remarkably absent from discussions by the anti-woke Right I note)
3. I have little desire, as a woman, to debate with irate old men like you who seem to think they know what a woman is but whose other views usually reveal them to be out-and-out misogynists.
This may raise its head in a GE campaign but it will do so for the barest moment. It's a clear sign to me that the Conservatives are losing. We had all this nonsense before in a different guise under John Major with his Back to Basics bullshit.
Your 1997 awaits.
Embarrassing stuff. What are the relevant complexities of sex?
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
The questions should be the other way around. (1) In what circumstances can people be allowed to change their gender and (2) what should be the consequences of doing so?
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
“Cis” has not been banned.
'Cis' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.
... or trans females to males (remarkably absent from discussions by the anti-woke Right feminists I note )
..
The reason for this is obvious if you think about it. Most of the time nobody should care what sex/gender someone is.
In the small number of scenarios where we do care - sex of prisoners, sex of teaching staff responsible for schoolgirls on school trips, sex of a doctor performing an intimate examination, etc - most of the safeguarding rules that we have were developed to protect women and girls from men. So a trans man interacts with these safeguarding rules in a very different way than a trans woman.
It's men who are the issue and problem in this, and how we accurately identify who is a man when safeguarding rules that exclude men apply.
That's the fundamental issue. And that focus shows why this concern isn't driven by transphobia, or hatred.
BTW Darren Jones MP is doing really good work in the Business Select Committee holding the Post Office to account in a politely lethal way. A Labour MP to keep an eye on for the future I think.
Badenoch I see continues to be utterly feeble on this. Stupid woman.
When Theresa May and her colleagues on the Tory benches in the Commons played pantomime with Jeremy Corbyn, and he called them "stupid people", several Tory MPs kicked up a big stink alleging that what he'd actually said was "stupid woman". Apparently that would have been terrible.
The correct term is of course "stupid person with a vagina". One wouldn't want to exclude trans men (or "trans women" as we are told to call them).
PS I do not enjoy posting stuff like this. But the culture in Britain and several other countries richly deserves it, because this is the level it has brought things down to.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
The questions should be the other way around. (1) In what circumstances can people be allowed to change their gender and (2) what should be the consequences of doing so?
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
@Cyclefree - your questions are boring deb soc stuff. Du jour, though.
@bondegezou - yeah, social constructs, but money is nonetheless a different kind of thing from ethnicity. "Gender" is just a notion about what sex a person is or can be. The notion that there are more than two sexes is factually wrong. Many notions are. The notions that there are only two genders, that together they can generate a new human (that's why they're called genders), and that having Y chromosomes means male and not having Y chromosomes means female, are all factually correct.
Sorry but there is such a thing as objective reality, even if official propaganda says that any given person's imagined truth is as objectively true as what anyone else thinks. Funny how the notion of psychosis hasn't been binned, then, but I digress.
The big question is none of this. It's as follows: why is this cultist garbage about "trans", given among other facts that only a TINY minority of people consider themselves transsexual or anything close to it, being pushed so much with so little opposition. And I can tell you that if Andrea Dworkin were alive she would tell you what the answer was.
Analysis of post: cogent argument detected that could potentially be persuasive.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
Yes, we found in many working class areas some voters not bothering to vote this year in the local elections even if they had voted last year for the party when Boris was still leader.
Middle class voters generally prefer Rishi to Boris, problem is many of them went LD or Starmer Labour last year and as the local election results proved aren't coming back even with Rishi.
PB being overwhelmingly middle class picks up the latter demographic but not the former
The trouble is that the triumph of 2019, even breaking out of the box of minority/small majority of 2010-17, needs both groups of voters. And without fear of Corbyn to hold those two together, they don't really want to sit in the same party. What looked like the triumph of Red Wall Theory was really driven by the other lot's mistakes.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
Thanks. But I am not quite sure of your argument here. Regardless of my own view (which I think is closer to yours) it seems to be perfectly arguable that 'gender' and 'biological sex' are two terms for the same thing. How would you prove the difference? I doubt if it can be done by assertion, for example, that X is biologically male but female by gender; more is needed. Just as more is needed to show that Y's assertion that though biologically a girl they identifies as a cat denotes a distinction with actual meaning, and is not just play acting.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
The best we can hope for is Labour benefits from the hard work a Tory Chancellor put in, a bit like 1997.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
The questions should be the other way around. (1) In what circumstances can people be allowed to change their gender and (2) what should be the consequences of doing so?
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
“Cis” has not been banned.
'Cis' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.
You could, of course, change the word "cis" for "god", make a few tiny changes, and the whole paragraph would still make sense.
This (trans) is a belief system. I treat people's beliefs with respect, so long as they don't infringe on other people. That means, whatever my personal views on gender identity, that I will address people by their preferred pronoun.
At the same time, the existence of belief in trans shouldn't affect the laws setup to protect women from male predators.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
The questions should be the other way around. (1) In what circumstances can people be allowed to change their gender and (2) what should be the consequences of doing so?
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
If a man wants to dress as a woman and wank in public it doesn't really matter what gender he claims. It is indecent exposure and is already a crime, and one that carries a potential custodial sentence. Why not just deal with them that way?
USCG update at 6pm our time was an Oscars acceptance speech masterpiece, but no hard info. Air expires tomorrow lunchtime.
They don't know where they are, they don't know how to get them back up, and they're running out of time.
Generally I try to be cheerful and make positive or funny responses on PB, but on this one it's just sad. I am very sad for those poor people, regardless of their wealth.
Yup. Much the most likely thing to have happened though is a catastrophic implosion 4 days ago, and they are way past running out of time. I have an interest in bicycles, and every day on the relevant reddits there's a post saying OMG is this flaw on my $5000 carbon frame just a ding, or a radical failure, and the answer is: no way to tell. This is not stuff to make submersibles out of. If I ever buy my dream bike it will be made of titanium, and so should this sub have been.
In fact having typed all that, wtf were they thinking? CF is LIGHT, that's why you use it, but a submersible isn't interested in weight. Going down it wants to be heavy, coming up its buoyancy by virtue of not being full of water makes weight of material irrelevant.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
Because if a man calls himself a woman and is one for legal purposes it most certainly does affect me. It means that I no longer have the right to a single sex space or service, my ability to challenge discrimination on the grounds of sex is diminished, my ability to compete fairly in sports is taken away and so on.
A man can dress and call himself what he wants. But giving legal effect to such a private choice does impact others and it is only the selfish narcissism of those demanding this which fails to see this and/or attacks those who raise this. It is not libertarianism. It is a childish "I want, I get" demand.
As for your second para, I'll believe that when I see it. I'll take the view of Professor Sir Robert Winston over yours.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
There is a tipping point where the evils of inflation have to be balanced against the evils of repossessions and recession.
Interest rates are the BoE's only weapon. I heard the analogy that it's like playing the US Masters with just a 3 iron.
I suspect Reeves with her backstory may be more imaginative than Sunak and Hunt. I hope she is anyway.
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
Note however RefUK on 5-7% in most polls and most of their voters will be Boris supporters. Indeed Sunak now leaking more to RefUK than Starmer is to the Greens with RefUK ahead of the Greens in 3/4 of the last polls in the table.
So Sunak realised he could not afford to alienate Johnson supporters too much in the report vote too much and abstained even if the vast majority of Tory MPs also did not vote against it either so as not to offend centrist voters too much
This Welsh poll is high for RefUK
Wales Westminster VI (17-18 June):
Labour 43% (–) Conservatives 22% (-1) Reform UK 12% (+3) Plaid Cymru 10% (-1) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Green 4% (–) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 14-15 May
12% RefUK in Wales astonishingly high yes and even above Plaid and the LDs, same as UKIP got UK wide in 2015 and almost the same as the 13% UKIP received in Wales in 2015
Refuk sounds unfeasibly high - but irrelevant as they have zero chance of a seat. Plaid will win 2 or 3 seats because of the concentration of their votes. LD could potentially win 1.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
I'm guessing that the reason you think of yourself as male is a combination of the fact that you are male and the fact that you're sufficiently sane to realise the first fact.
Building a big construct of ideas on the distinction between a reality and the perception of the reality isn't necessarily big, clever, or required. Sometimes it is of course necessary. Indeed sometimes it doesn't happen and it damned well should. But it can also conceivably be stupid, mostly bullsh*t in the way it's done, and encouraged by people who have a wicked agenda. Agreed?
Also conceiving of a distinction by mostly considering a grey area or edge cases isn't always the right way to go about it.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
There is a tipping point where the evils of inflation have to be balanced against the evils of repossessions and recession.
Interest rates are the BoE's only weapon. I heard the analogy that it's like playing the US Masters with just a 3 iron.
I suspect Reeves with her backstory may be more imaginative than Sunak and Hunt. I hope she is anyway.
So, she either has to do exactly the same thing she's currently attacking the Government for doing, or we're crossing our fingers and hoping she has some magic beans instead then?
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
"STFU" is entirely permissible, as a counter to your refusal to produce evidence. Otherwise it's not.
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
That's because, absent a time machine to stop mistakes over the last few decades, there isn't one- or rather the only plan is roughly the one that Hunt is following. Try to close the budget deficit, make people poorer in a way that has some sort of strategy. Because some of our riches have turned out to be phoney. Hangovers aren't meant to be pleasurable.
What Labour can do is spread the pain differently (different client vote) and possibly be a bit more realistic.
But even if Labour had no plan at all, it would still be right to kick the current government out. Pour encourager les autres.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
"STFU" is entirely permissible, as a counter to your refusal to produce evidence. Otherwise it's not.
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
I'm not sure "recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces" doesn't constitute primary evidence, except in the sense of being one step distant from the event. Are you asking for actual recordings of trans-bashing?
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
I wonder if Rentoul is being a little populist here. There is no possibility of quick fixes to a whole series of problems facing a new administration. Here's a short list to add to inflation. Debt, deficit, housing, migration, boats, NHS, post-Brexit, poverty, industrial strategy, UC, social care, political trust, London and SE v the rest, climate, policing, net Zero, teachers in STEM subjects.
That Sir K has on the whole not suggested quick fixes is greatly to his credit. Any coherent plan has to make sense of the BoE failure to achieve its single KPI of 2% inflation - this is set by government but the BoE actually has the remit. If it's a quick fix, it will be attacked as such. If it is a genuine plan it will be attacked as too slow. Etc
Labour need to work in government on: trust, competence, integrity and long term goals, honestly communicated. Good luck to them.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
I wonder if Rentoul is being a little populist here. There is no possibility of quick fixes to a whole series of problems facing a new administration. Here's a short list to add to inflation. Debt, deficit, housing, migration, boats, NHS, post-Brexit, poverty, industrial strategy, UC, social care, political trust, London and SE v the rest, climate, policing, net Zero, teachers in STEM subjects.
That Sir K has on the whole not suggested quick fixes is greatly to his credit. Any coherent plan has to make sense of the BoE failure to achieve its single KPI of 2% inflation - this is set by government but the BoE actually has the remit. If it's a quick fix, it will be attacked as such. If it is a genuine plan it will be attacked as too slow. Etc
Labour need to work in government on: trust, competence, integrity and long term goals, honestly communicated. Good luck to them.
Absolutely, I don't think they will succeed but would think they are even less likely to succeed if offering quick fixes. And even if they have no better chance of success than Sunak they still need to replace the government because of ethics, trust, corruption and arrogance.
Incidentally I don't think this is an issue which will affect the GE - subject only to, possibly, the outcome and timing of the Scottish challenge to the S.35 Order.
I do not trust the Tories on women's rights. They are simply using this. But I do not trust either the Lib Dems (Ed Davey said last autumn that he did not think there should be any place where men could not go - so he's made clear that he does not support the existing position under the EA), the Greens (who are unhinged on this issue) or Labour who cannot even describe accurately what the EA says on this topic.
My position is a simple one really: women are oppressed because of their sex - not their gender - and that oppression, whether it is sexual violence or misogynistic condescension or workplace discrimination etc - largely comes from men.
Women are entitled to have boundaries, to have those boundaries respected, to say that No means No and have that respected. Any man (or woman) who for whatever reason won't accept that and seeks to trick, gaslight, bully, force or demand that he be where he is not wanted is a threat. No decent man would do this. No decent political party would seek to enact policies with such an effect.
To days news is wall to wall financial crisis with the elephant in the room being Brexit. Now that Johnson has gone commentators and others seem much less restrained in mentioning the great unmentionable. There's hardly anyone still talking it up or even prepared to defend it.
Surely someone has got to mobilise the 17,000,000 (Now more likely to be 25,000,000) or they're going to get bounced around by this economic storm like everyone else and without even a loin cloth.
Time for someone with courage or ambition to go for it.
Personally, I have given up on the UK rejoining. I found it a lot easier to let my UK passport expire and just start using my Irish one.
Are you allowed to have both? A friend has just got herself an Austrian passport which they'll give to any family of Austrian refugees from WW2 however many generations down the line and they can keep their UK one. You're very fortunate. In France people with properties are trying to invent the most crazy schemes to circumvent the rules. The French are now bringing in a non dom/ second home property tax which you can't blame them for doing. If Boris ever finds his way to the Cote d'Azur he'll be strung up
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
"STFU" is entirely permissible, as a counter to your refusal to produce evidence. Otherwise it's not.
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
I'm not sure "recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces" doesn't constitute primary evidence, except in the sense of being one step distant from the event. Are you asking for actual recordings of trans-bashing?
"I'm not sure "recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces" doesn't constitute primary evidence, except in the sense of being one step distant from the event" is beautiful. "you are calling this secondary evidence, but there is no evidence fir it being secondary, except the fact that it is secondary."
Substantively, the answer to your point is that the evidence is entirely dubject to the judgment of plod, and to rather odd statutory constraints about how you define a hate crime. If I say here and now that I think JKR has a point about woman-only spaces, that is hate speech. Apparently.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
"STFU" is entirely permissible, as a counter to your refusal to produce evidence. Otherwise it's not.
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
You are being ridiculous.
But I'll tell you one: the other day, someone posted a picture of Eddie Izzard in a women's toilet, asking why Eddie was in there. The photo included a queue of other women, none of whom looked fazed by her presence.
So yes, someone thought it was okay to take a photo of women in a women's toilet, to complain about a trans person being in there. The complainer obviously wasn't the sharpest knife in the box...
And that was a mild one (though some of the comments underneath ... were not).
Now, I asked you a question earlier: how do *you* define 'hatred'?
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
I wonder if Rentoul is being a little populist here. There is no possibility of quick fixes to a whole series of problems facing a new administration. Here's a short list to add to inflation. Debt, deficit, housing, migration, boats, NHS, post-Brexit, poverty, industrial strategy, UC, social care, political trust, London and SE v the rest, climate, policing, net Zero, teachers in STEM subjects.
That Sir K has on the whole not suggested quick fixes is greatly to his credit. Any coherent plan has to make sense of the BoE failure to achieve its single KPI of 2% inflation - this is set by government but the BoE actually has the remit. If it's a quick fix, it will be attacked as such. If it is a genuine plan it will be attacked as too slow. Etc
Labour need to work in government on: trust, competence, integrity and long term goals, honestly communicated. Good luck to them.
Yes, good luck to them.
I have little confidence in them but I feel the Tories have really reached the end of the road. Out of ideas and desperate to try to hold on but fighting among themselves and fighting a culture war against issues that they have really allowed to proliferate.
I don’t vote Tory anyway so, perhaps, I would say that. I don’t detect the ‘visceral anger’ Heathener speaks about but I do get the impression people are weary of how things work, or don’t, in this country and a change of course may help.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
There is a tipping point where the evils of inflation have to be balanced against the evils of repossessions and recession.
Interest rates are the BoE's only weapon. I heard the analogy that it's like playing the US Masters with just a 3 iron.
I suspect Reeves with her backstory may be more imaginative than Sunak and Hunt. I hope she is anyway.
So, she either has to do exactly the same thing she's currently attacking the Government for doing, or we're crossing our fingers and hoping she has some magic beans instead then?
Right!
Yes, but that is how it works. When a government loses its grip on the economy, the voters turn to the other, like with the GFC, Black Wednesday, Winter of Discontent etc. Even if the opposite side only differs in detail in terms of policy.
This government looks like failing on all its own pledges and is riddled with corruption and back-stabbing court politics. Why would anyone in their right mind vote them back in?
To days news is wall to wall financial crisis with the elephant in the room being Brexit. Now that Johnson has gone commentators and others seem much less restrained in mentioning the great unmentionable. There's hardly anyone still talking it up or even prepared to defend it.
Surely someone has got to mobilise the 17,000,000 (Now more likely to be 25,000,000) or they're going to get bounced around by this economic storm like everyone else and without even a loin cloth.
Time for someone with courage or ambition to go for it.
Personally, I have given up on the UK rejoining. I found it a lot easier to let my UK passport expire and just start using my Irish one.
Are you allowed to have both? A friend has just got herself an Austrian passport which they'll give to any family of Austrian refugees from WW2 however many generations down the line and they can keep their UK one. You're very fortunate. In France people with properties are trying to invent the most crazy schemes to circumvent the rules. The French are now bringing in a non dom property tax which you can't blame them for doing. If Boris ever finds his way to the Cote d'Azur he'll be strung up
The Irish do not mind their citizens being dual passport holders - and a lot of other countries are the same.
NOTE that over a century ago, Austria-Hungary's contribution to the Cis-Trans debate, was calling the two halves of the Dual Monarchy "Cisleithia" and "Transleithia" divided by the Unmighty Leitha River.
Wonder what Herr Dr. Kraft-Ebing said about that back in the day? And Viktor Orban today!
Officially, the names of the Austrian and Hungarian units of the Hapsburg Empire were
> Die im Reichsrat vertretenen Königreiche und Länder in Hungarian:A Birodalmi Tanácsban képviselt királyságok és országok {try saying THAT 3x fast!} in English: Kingdoms and Lands represented in the [Austrian] Parliament)
> Magyar Szent Korona országai in German: die Länder der Heiligen Ungarischen Stephanskrone in English: Lands of the Holy [St. Stephan's] Crown of Hungary
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
I continue to suspect that Labour's plan for Government is going to end up being continuity Toryism with some extra windmills - but if they can at least get more houses built than the Tories as well, then this will still constitute a modest improvement.
The fundamental problem we have as a country is decades of sinking cash into property as a one-way bet, and the consequent deficiency of investment in anything else - culminating in a moribund, stagnant, rotting economy in which, absent any meaningful growth, the only way that anyone can increase their own prosperity is by taking it away from someone else. It's the root explanation for the lack of housebuilding and the Nimby plague. Expand the supply of housing until prices fall (either in absolute terms or at least relative to wages) and, just as owner-occupation becomes realistic and affordable for more renters, so the slice of the economic pie held by existing owner-occupiers and rentiers shrinks. So of course rich old farts are going to oppose development.
If you're going to have the kind of economic settlement that existed for much of the mid-Twentieth Century, where the living standards of most of the population increased at the same time because economic growth was sufficient to allow all boats to float higher on the tide, then you need that growth in the first place. Absent growth, all that's left for voters who still expect to keep getting better off is an almighty scrap with other voters for control of the existing pool of resources - in which the more politically powerful socio-economic groups ransack the wealth of the weaker ones. Exhibit A: the hand-in-hand march of the Cameroon austerity program and the pension triple lock.
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
Thank you for the link, which I watched with gr...oh my goodness it was awful. Well, to be honest, it wasn't bad, and certainly not rubbish, but very of its time.
To days news is wall to wall financial crisis with the elephant in the room being Brexit. Now that Johnson has gone commentators and others seem much less restrained in mentioning the great unmentionable. There's hardly anyone still talking it up or even prepared to defend it.
Surely someone has got to mobilise the 17,000,000 (Now more likely to be 25,000,000) or they're going to get bounced around by this economic storm like everyone else and without even a loin cloth.
Time for someone with courage or ambition to go for it.
Personally, I have given up on the UK rejoining. I found it a lot easier to let my UK passport expire and just start using my Irish one.
Are you allowed to have both? A friend has just got herself an Austrian passport which they'll give to any family of Austrian refugees from WW2 however many generations down the line and they can keep their UK one. You're very fortunate. In France people with properties are trying to invent the most crazy schemes to circumvent the rules. The French are now bringing in a non dom property tax which you can't blame them for doing. If Boris ever finds his way to the Cote d'Azur he'll be strung up
The Irish do not mind their citizens being dual passport holders - and a lot of other countries are the same.
India, unfortunately, is one country that DOES kick up a fuss.
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
"STFU" is entirely permissible, as a counter to your refusal to produce evidence. Otherwise it's not.
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
You are being ridiculous.
But I'll tell you one: the other day, someone posted a picture of Eddie Izzard in a women's toilet, asking why Eddie was in there. The photo included a queue of other women, none of whom looked fazed by her presence.
So yes, someone thought it was okay to take a photo of women in a women's toilet, to complain about a trans person being in there. The complainer obviously wasn't the sharpest knife in the box...
And that was a mild one (though some of the comments underneath ... were not).
Now, I asked you a question earlier: how do *you* define 'hatred'?
Chilling stuff, that's how the holocaust started.
I don't really understand this "How do you you define a common English word" so give me a clue. How do you define "cow"?
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
We have three problems: low growth, high inflation and a high deficit.
Not possible to solve all three at once from this starting point.
Labour could try for 2 out of three either by tax rises and spending cuts. For example, removing the triple lock or increasing income tax. Helps reduce inflation and the deficit.
But that would be politically brave. If they can at least hold off from inflationary spending (see: universal energy price cap, proposed tax cuts) that'd be a good start.
Otherwise, sack Bailey and replace him with an inflation hawk.
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
There is a tipping point where the evils of inflation have to be balanced against the evils of repossessions and recession.
Interest rates are the BoE's only weapon. I heard the analogy that it's like playing the US Masters with just a 3 iron.
I suspect Reeves with her backstory may be more imaginative than Sunak and Hunt. I hope she is anyway.
So, she either has to do exactly the same thing she's currently attacking the Government for doing, or we're crossing our fingers and hoping she has some magic beans instead then?
Right!
I don't know.
I suspect if you wanted to point a finger at anyone for dropping the ball it's Bailey and the BoE. They were advised to raise interest rates far earlier than they did. Maybe a quick, shorter, sharper shock would be more effective.
You could also question Hunt as to why he has only met the mortgage provider Lobby today when the likes of Martin Lewis were advising action would be needed in 2023 last November.
Incumbency can be such a millstone.
Maybe Reeves has some ideas, maybe not. Your lot are clean out of them.
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
Labour's big plus is simply that they are not the Tories.
The old adage of "Oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them" has rarely been truer
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct, does that mean that we should ignore gender in law? Should we support or make life difficult for people who want to change gender?
Ethnicity is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. These things have protection in law (albeit different ones). Money is a social construct. Democracy is a social construct. Lots of interesting and nice things are social constructs!
Religion certainly shouldn't be protected by law, nor ethnicity. Democracy and money aren't protected already you are free to advocate for a dictatorship or a cash free society based on barter
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
There is a tipping point where the evils of inflation have to be balanced against the evils of repossessions and recession.
Interest rates are the BoE's only weapon. I heard the analogy that it's like playing the US Masters with just a 3 iron.
I suspect Reeves with her backstory may be more imaginative than Sunak and Hunt. I hope she is anyway.
So, she either has to do exactly the same thing she's currently attacking the Government for doing, or we're crossing our fingers and hoping she has some magic beans instead then?
Right!
I don't know.
I suspect if you wanted to point a finger at anyone for dropping the ball it's Bailey and the BoE. They were advised to raise interest rates far earlier than they did. Maybe a quick, shorter, sharper shock would be more effective.
You could also question Hunt as to why he has only met the mortgage provider Lobby today when the likes of Martin Lewis were advising action would be needed in 2023 last November.
Maybe Reeves has some ideas, maybe not. Your lot are clean out of them.
On which point. What is the point of a quarter or half point rise tomorrow when everyone knows there will be at least two more? They are priced in. Why not a full point tomorrow? Get it over and done with. Can someone explain?
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
Thank you for the link, which I watched with gr...oh my goodness it was awful. Well, to be honest, it wasn't bad, and certainly not rubbish, but very of its time.
Bloody hell, Peter Gordeno is in that one ! From UFO.
I am going to grab some of these tomorrow as I am working from home. They are so dire they are entertaining. YouTube has some good stuff being posted. There’s an account called Nostalgia who posts some great one off plays and dramas.
Loved the original Mike Batt theme, there’s a TOTP that exists with him playing it and, Pans People are dancing to it.
I did watch that play for tomorrow, Crimes, I think you posted. I got it off thebox a few years ago. It was hard going apart from the lovely Sylvestra La Touzel.
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
Look at you with your Pertwee-era references. It'll be The War Games quotes next.
If only the Doctor had said ‘that one looks like Karl Marx’ when being shown the pictures of what his future self could look like. 😀
Pertwee was the most right-on leftie Doctor of all. Always in contact with 'The Peace Party' and personal friend of Chairman Mao. Probably knew Corbyn.
Somewhat in the opposite direction - it's a long time since I watched The Brain of Morbius. You've just cost me a few nights viewing!
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
Thank you for the link, which I watched with gr...oh my goodness it was awful. Well, to be honest, it wasn't bad, and certainly not rubbish, but very of its time.
Bloody hell, Peter Gordeno is in that one ! From UFO.
I am going to grab some of these tomorrow as I am working from home. YouTube has some good stuff being posted. There’s an account called Nostalgia who posts some great one off plays and dramas.
Loved the original Mike Batt theme, there’s a TOTP that exists with him playing it and, Pans People are dancing to it.
I did watch that play for tomorrow, Crimes, I think you posted. I got it off thebox a few years ago. It was hard going apart from the lovely Sylvestra La Touzel.
I saw Peter Gordeno at Twickenham on Saturday playing keyboards and bass guitar for Depeche Mode!
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
"STFU" is entirely permissible, as a counter to your refusal to produce evidence. Otherwise it's not.
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
I'm not sure "recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces" doesn't constitute primary evidence, except in the sense of being one step distant from the event. Are you asking for actual recordings of trans-bashing?
"I'm not sure "recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces" doesn't constitute primary evidence, except in the sense of being one step distant from the event" is beautiful. "you are calling this secondary evidence, but there is no evidence fir it being secondary, except the fact that it is secondary."
Substantively, the answer to your point is that the evidence is entirely dubject to the judgment of plod, and to rather odd statutory constraints about how you define a hate crime. If I say here and now that I think JKR has a point about woman-only spaces, that is hate speech. Apparently.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was asking what level of evidence would suffice. Apologies if my meaning was obscure.
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Neither, I’m Atheist.” “Aye, but are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
That’s the problem with ‘cis’ - it buys into the belief system, it assumes you have a ‘gender identity’……
Insisting everyone has a ‘gender identity’ is akin to insisting everyone has a ‘soul’. It’s not insulting in itself, but if you keep on about it and can’t grasp that some people don’t share your belief, then they might get narked at you.
“But ‘cis’ just means the opposite of ‘trans’!”
Great - so what does ‘trans’ mean? It can’t be defined without referring to ‘gender identity’, a metaphysical belief.
That's rubbish. Of course everyone has a gender identity. I think of myself as male. Even if you are the sort of person that thinks all trans people are mentally deluded, any everyone by rights should have the same gender and biological sex, gender identity still provably exists. In the way that a soul isn't provable.
How do you prove your gender? How do you test for it?
Your sex is in your chromosomes and for the overwhelming majority demonstrated in their reproductive organs. It’s binary in the overwhelming majority of mammals.
Unsurprisingly some are rejecting compelled belief and compelled speech.
If we accept gender is a social construct,
If it’s not a social construct what is it?
If I say “I don’t believe in god” I’m not instantly denounced for promoting a Christian/Muslim genocide, of denying the existence of Christians, or having the police set upon me for hate speech. The trans community have been very poorly served by the authoritarian “no debate” trans activists.
Yes, I am sure the issue faced by the trans community is the actions of *some* trans activists. And not, say, those who try to belittle them, make them out to be a threat, and worse.
I mean, obviously the hated we see toSTFwards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
I have no doubt there are groups of men who go around in cities identifying and beating up trans people, just as they identify and beat up gays and immigrants. That is appalling and, happily, illegal. but I have never seen anything identified on the internet as "hatred of trans people" which turned out on closer inspection to be anything other than a polite suggestion that women should be allowed their own hospital wards, and sporting contests. The people who go "Waaah" about this are doing a great disservice to the victims of the behaviour identified in sentence 1 above.
If you don't see it, then I suggest you look a little harder. Or, for your sanity, don't.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
That is an evasion, and just not good enough. Link, or stfu. In the mean time, the most hated "trans hater" I as a general internet consumer am aware of is JKR, and she has never said anything not entirely reasonable, nor anything which could be construed as hatred of anyone.
"STFU" is entirely permissible, as a counter to your refusal to produce evidence. Otherwise it's not.
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
You are being ridiculous.
But I'll tell you one: the other day, someone posted a picture of Eddie Izzard in a women's toilet, asking why Eddie was in there. The photo included a queue of other women, none of whom looked fazed by her presence.
So yes, someone thought it was okay to take a photo of women in a women's toilet, to complain about a trans person being in there. The complainer obviously wasn't the sharpest knife in the box...
And that was a mild one (though some of the comments underneath ... were not).
Now, I asked you a question earlier: how do *you* define 'hatred'?
Chilling stuff, that's how the holocaust started.
I don't really understand this "How do you you define a common English word" so give me a clue. How do you define "cow"?
Okay, troll.
You ask for evidence. I give it. You say it is not evidence. I give other evidence. You then discount that in a rather crass manner.
All of which gives emphasis to my question - how do *you* define hatred? Because your 'holocaust' comment makes it seem as if your definition is somewhat odd. Is something only 'hate' if it leads to the holocaust?
And BTW, that sort of insipid drip-drip hatred over decades and centuries definitely fed into the holocaust. People demeaning Jews and Judaism. Blaming them for things wrongly. Marking them out as different in a bad way; and all the lazy stereotypes that are still so loved by anti-Semites. And the same can be said for other victims of the camps as well, such as the Romanies and the disabled.
Which is why, whilst free speech is important, so is calling out hate speech and hatred when it occurs.
I think we are all Spartacus in some way. Although hopefully not the "crucified on the Appian Way" way, because that would be...bad.
I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together…..
Third Doctor: "...Jo, it's quite simple. I am he and he is me" Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo" Second Doctor: "What" Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
Look at you with your Pertwee-era references. It'll be The War Games quotes next.
If only the Doctor had said ‘that one looks like Karl Marx’ when being shown the pictures of what his future self could look like. 😀
Pertwee was the most right-on leftie Doctor of all. Always in contact with 'The Peace Party' and personal friend of Chairman Mao. Probably knew Corbyn.
Somewhat in the opposite direction - it's a long time since I watched The Brain of Morbius. You've just cost me a few nights viewing!
Good news, Brain of Morbius is a belter.
Pertwee was not only right on and pretty left wing, as a doctor, he also enjoyed sparring with petty pen pushers and bureaucrats like Walker in Sea Devils, Brownrose in Terror of the Autons and Chinn in Claws of Axos.
Now I have a dilemma. Do I watch an episode,of Dalziel and Pascoe and some seaside specials while working from home or do I watch Ambassadors of Death and Mind of Evil.
🙉 Hear there were some serious truth bombs at the 1922 Committee in address by @FrankLuntz to Tory MPs.
Said anyone with a 15k or less majority is "at this moment in time" under threat of losing their seat - added: "this is what CCHQ are not telling you."….
Luntz also said while he counted Boris Johnson as a friend, the ex-PM was "behaving horribly" and "Trumpian" and said "he needs to go away."
Some grim gallows humour from Tory MPs in - what were previously not considered - marginal seats... some wondering what to do next. 2/2
To @MikeSmithson I'd add that this is not just about Boris, although some of it is.
Boris is definitely part of the problem because he reached a wing of voters, mainly northern red wall ones, who Sunak not only doesn't reach, but whom he has alienated. Boris has not gone away. Or, rather, by his exile he is reminding them of what they no longer have. Remember, they did not vote for Sunak. Every time Boris sticks his column in the Mail he's enflaming them against Sunak. These are also largely the 2019 stayaways who Mike has been warning about.
But there are two other whammies
One is the mortgage crisis, which is awful.
The other inflation, ditto.
And what are Labour going to do about inflation?
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
There is a tipping point where the evils of inflation have to be balanced against the evils of repossessions and recession.
Interest rates are the BoE's only weapon. I heard the analogy that it's like playing the US Masters with just a 3 iron.
I suspect Reeves with her backstory may be more imaginative than Sunak and Hunt. I hope she is anyway.
So, she either has to do exactly the same thing she's currently attacking the Government for doing, or we're crossing our fingers and hoping she has some magic beans instead then?
Right!
I don't know.
I suspect if you wanted to point a finger at anyone for dropping the ball it's Bailey and the BoE. They were advised to raise interest rates far earlier than they did. Maybe a quick, shorter, sharper shock would be more effective.
You could also question Hunt as to why he has only met the mortgage provider Lobby today when the likes of Martin Lewis were advising action would be needed in 2023 last November.
Maybe Reeves has some ideas, maybe not. Your lot are clean out of them.
On which point. What is the point of a quarter or half point rise tomorrow when everyone knows there will be at least two more? They are priced in. Why not a full point tomorrow? Get it over and done with. Can someone explain?
Bazball needs to take over the BoE......just get it done.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
The libertarian argument however is your right to swing your fist at the point of my nose and this is relevant because someone declaring themselves a certain gender impinges on the rights of those born of the biological sex of those usually associated with that gender.
A guy or girl wants to dress as the opposite gender - really dont care and doesn't bother me
A guy or girl wants to go into a toilet based on what they believe their gender is - again dont care
However for prisons, therapy, refuges, sports etc where people have a right to safeguarding and not have to share these spaces with someone of the opposite biological sex that has not transitioned then no they can fuck right off they are a delusional in their belief they should be able to as a scientologist
Comments
- I don't believe in gender identity, and don't identify with any gender. I respect others' freedom to believe in gender identity and on that basis choose whichever gender they wish.
- I don't believe in God, and don't identify with any religion. I respect others' freedom to believe in God and on that basis choose whichever religion they wish.
As it is you've probably stifled debate for a week, as nobody dares respond!
Username checks out.
I mean, obviously the hated we see towards trans people is absolutely *not* an issue they face, is it?
And I hope he has no chance in any primary. Even Trump isn't quite as bad as he is.
Imagine if we go into 2024 with late Seventies-style interest rates and stagflation, AND an early Nineties-type property price crash and negative equity trap playing out at the same time. Absolute scenes.
(1) was answered by the Goodwin case and (2) the GRA and the EA answered (2). In essence we only allow people to change gender legally when there is a pressing need to do so ie dysphoria in order that people with it can live more happily, and the consequences for others of them doing so are limited.
No-one has ever answered the question as to why anyone who does not have dysphoria should be allowed legally to change gender. Why should a man with a fetish for wanking in public while wearing women's clothes, for instance, be allowed legally to change his gender? Just because he wants does not mean he should get. Bu I want, I get seems to be the sum total of the reasoning.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Personally I think of gender as very much like a soul. Its existence is unprovable but some have faith in it. Which is fine for them. But irrelevant to those who don't. Seeking to impose such concepts and the associated language on society as a whole seems to me to be no different from the religious seeking to do so on secular society. We resisted previous attempts and we should resist any more attempts to tell us what to think, what not to think, what we can or cannot say and we should certainly resist any attempt to elevate any group of people to some untouchable sacred caste. If priests can't boss me about I'm not having any other man, no matter what he calls himself or how he presents himself, doing so either. Neither religion nor this latest belief system should be allowed to dictate how society and its laws should be structured.
Let those with dysphoria get the help they need and change gender if they want. Anyone else with fetishes or fantasies are of no concern to the law and should make no demands on it or of others to approve or validate or indeed pay any attention to their beliefs, fancies or personal intimate desires.
And banning the phrase "cis" or "cisgender" (tho I detest the term) is daft.
Badenoch I see continues to be utterly feeble on this. Stupid woman.
For starters in 2023 designed to sprinkle a bit o' sand in the Biden 2024 campaign gas tank. NOT enough to disable or even close, but something to gun up the works.
For 2024 primaries and maybe beyond, aimed at taking small stripes off of Uncle Joe's hide.
Which in close state and/or national situation MIGHT be the racers edge.
As a matter of interest, how do you define 'hatred' ?
'Cis' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1671507557175681024?s=20
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
@bondegezou - yeah, social constructs, but money is nonetheless a different kind of thing from ethnicity. "Gender" is just a notion about what sex a person is or can be. The notion that there are more than two sexes is factually wrong. Many notions are. The notions that there are only two genders, that together they can generate a new human (that's why they're called genders), and that having Y chromosomes means male and not having Y chromosomes means female, are all factually correct.
Sorry but there is such a thing as objective reality, even if official propaganda says that any given person's imagined truth is as objectively true as what anyone else thinks. Funny how the notion of psychosis hasn't been binned, then, but I digress.
The big question is none of this. It's as follows: why is this cultist garbage about "trans", given among other facts that only a TINY minority of people consider themselves transsexual or anything close to it, being pushed so much with so little opposition. And I can tell you that if Andrea Dworkin were alive she would tell you what the answer was.
You proclaimed similar before and claimed to be an expert who had been a talking head on this. Ishmael challenged you, fairly, to a debate and you weaselled out and refused then.
The issue is political. It has an impact on politics.
Back to your flask.
I haven't seem any convincing answers to @Pulpstar 's excellent questions this morning.
Generally I try to be cheerful and make positive or funny responses on PB, but on this one it's just sad. I am very sad for those poor people, regardless of their wealth.
I am a resident of the Hotel Boris Johnson, I can check out any time I like, but I can never leave.*
* With thanks to Don Henley, Don Felder and Glenn Frey.
That's not the same thing: her posts on this subject are far more persuasive than yours.
In the small number of scenarios where we do care - sex of prisoners, sex of teaching staff responsible for schoolgirls on school trips, sex of a doctor performing an intimate examination, etc - most of the safeguarding rules that we have were developed to protect women and girls from men. So a trans man interacts with these safeguarding rules in a very different way than a trans woman.
It's men who are the issue and problem in this, and how we accurately identify who is a man when safeguarding rules that exclude men apply.
That's the fundamental issue. And that focus shows why this concern isn't driven by transphobia, or hatred.
The longer the circus continues, the harder the Conservative case will be to make
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/06/the-longer-the-circus-continues-the-harder-the-conservative-case-will-be-to-make-my-presentation-to-the-idu-forum-in-london/
Interesting analysis of where the Conservatives gained voters then lost them, and where Sunak is regaining some of them, but nowhere near enough, yet.
The correct term is of course "stupid person with a vagina". One wouldn't want to exclude trans men (or "trans women" as we are told to call them).
PS I do not enjoy posting stuff like this. But the culture in Britain and several other countries richly deserves it, because this is the level it has brought things down to.
Recommended countering strategy: ad hominem
I might suggest you take your own 'advice'.
But if you want a generalised take, from an OGH-friendly source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50166900
or:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48756370
It happens, and it is real.
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1671581200006225925?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
On top of which, the government is now unpopular.
This (trans) is a belief system. I treat people's beliefs with respect, so long as they don't infringe on other people. That means, whatever my personal views on gender identity, that I will address people by their preferred pronoun.
At the same time, the existence of belief in trans shouldn't affect the laws setup to protect women from male predators.
In fact having typed all that, wtf were they thinking? CF is LIGHT, that's why you use it, but a submersible isn't interested in weight. Going down it wants to be heavy, coming up its buoyancy by virtue of not being full of water makes weight of material irrelevant.
A man can dress and call himself what he wants. But giving legal effect to such a private choice does impact others and it is only the selfish narcissism of those demanding this which fails to see this and/or attacks those who raise this. It is not libertarianism. It is a childish "I want, I get" demand.
As for your second para, I'll believe that when I see it. I'll take the view of Professor Sir Robert Winston over yours.
Interest rates are the BoE's only weapon. I heard the analogy that it's like playing the US Masters with just a 3 iron.
I suspect Reeves with her backstory may be more imaginative than Sunak and Hunt. I hope she is anyway.
Jo Grant: "...and we are all together, koo koo kichoo"
Second Doctor: "What"
Jo Grant: "It's a song by the Beatles..."
(The Three Doctors, 1973)
Building a big construct of ideas on the distinction between a reality and the perception of the reality isn't necessarily big, clever, or required. Sometimes it is of course necessary. Indeed sometimes it doesn't happen and it damned well should. But it can also conceivably be stupid, mostly bullsh*t in the way it's done, and encouraged by people who have a wicked agenda. Agreed?
Also conceiving of a distinction by mostly considering a grey area or edge cases isn't always the right way to go about it.
Right!
Your links are to an "Anti-bullying charity" and to the recording of "transgender hate crimes" by English police forces. Not what I call primary evidence. Have another go.
What Labour can do is spread the pain differently (different client vote) and possibly be a bit more realistic.
But even if Labour had no plan at all, it would still be right to kick the current government out. Pour encourager les autres.
Here’s some seventies kitsch.
https://youtu.be/DNuco0p55dc
That Sir K has on the whole not suggested quick fixes is greatly to his credit. Any coherent plan has to make sense of the BoE failure to achieve its single KPI of 2% inflation - this is set by government but the BoE actually has the remit. If it's a quick fix, it will be attacked as such. If it is a genuine plan it will be attacked as too slow. Etc
Labour need to work in government on: trust, competence, integrity and long term goals, honestly communicated. Good luck to them.
I do not trust the Tories on women's rights. They are simply using this. But I do not trust either the Lib Dems (Ed Davey said last autumn that he did not think there should be any place where men could not go - so he's made clear that he does not support the existing position under the EA), the Greens (who are unhinged on this issue) or Labour who cannot even describe accurately what the EA says on this topic.
My position is a simple one really: women are oppressed because of their sex - not their gender - and that oppression, whether it is sexual violence or misogynistic condescension or workplace discrimination etc - largely comes from men.
Women are entitled to have boundaries, to have those boundaries respected, to say that No means No and have that respected. Any man (or woman) who for whatever reason won't accept that and seeks to trick, gaslight, bully, force or demand that he be where he is not wanted is a threat. No decent man would do this. No decent political party would seek to enact policies with such an effect.
Anyway time for dinner.
Have a nice summer solstice.
Substantively, the answer to your point is that the evidence is entirely dubject to the judgment of plod, and to rather odd statutory constraints about how you define a hate crime. If I say here and now that I think JKR has a point about woman-only spaces, that is hate speech. Apparently.
But I'll tell you one: the other day, someone posted a picture of Eddie Izzard in a women's toilet, asking why Eddie was in there. The photo included a queue of other women, none of whom looked fazed by her presence.
So yes, someone thought it was okay to take a photo of women in a women's toilet, to complain about a trans person being in there. The complainer obviously wasn't the sharpest knife in the box...
And that was a mild one (though some of the comments underneath ... were not).
Now, I asked you a question earlier: how do *you* define 'hatred'?
I have little confidence in them but I feel the Tories have really reached the end of the road. Out of ideas and desperate to try to hold on but fighting among themselves and fighting a culture war against issues that they have really allowed to proliferate.
I don’t vote Tory anyway so, perhaps, I would say that. I don’t detect the ‘visceral anger’ Heathener speaks about but I do get the impression people are weary of how things work, or don’t, in this country and a change of course may help.
This government looks like failing on all its own pledges and is riddled with corruption and back-stabbing court politics. Why would anyone in their right mind vote them back in?
Wonder what Herr Dr. Kraft-Ebing said about that back in the day? And Viktor Orban today!
Officially, the names of the Austrian and Hungarian units of the Hapsburg Empire were
> Die im Reichsrat vertretenen Königreiche und Länder
in Hungarian:A Birodalmi Tanácsban képviselt királyságok és országok {try saying THAT 3x fast!}
in English: Kingdoms and Lands represented in the [Austrian] Parliament)
> Magyar Szent Korona országai
in German: die Länder der Heiligen Ungarischen Stephanskrone
in English: Lands of the Holy [St. Stephan's] Crown of Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
The fundamental problem we have as a country is decades of sinking cash into property as a one-way bet, and the consequent deficiency of investment in anything else - culminating in a moribund, stagnant, rotting economy in which, absent any meaningful growth, the only way that anyone can increase their own prosperity is by taking it away from someone else. It's the root explanation for the lack of housebuilding and the Nimby plague. Expand the supply of housing until prices fall (either in absolute terms or at least relative to wages) and, just as owner-occupation becomes realistic and affordable for more renters, so the slice of the economic pie held by existing owner-occupiers and rentiers shrinks. So of course rich old farts are going to oppose development.
If you're going to have the kind of economic settlement that existed for much of the mid-Twentieth Century, where the living standards of most of the population increased at the same time because economic growth was sufficient to allow all boats to float higher on the tide, then you need that growth in the first place. Absent growth, all that's left for voters who still expect to keep getting better off is an almighty scrap with other voters for control of the existing pool of resources - in which the more politically powerful socio-economic groups ransack the wealth of the weaker ones. Exhibit A: the hand-in-hand march of the Cameroon austerity program and the pension triple lock.
Two weeks before: Mike and Bernie Winters! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foGD5DbLJck
I don't really understand this "How do you you define a common English word" so give me a clue. How do you define "cow"?
Not possible to solve all three at once from this starting point.
Labour could try for 2 out of three either by tax rises and spending cuts. For example, removing the triple lock or increasing income tax. Helps reduce inflation and the deficit.
But that would be politically brave. If they can at least hold off from inflationary spending (see: universal energy price cap, proposed tax cuts) that'd be a good start.
Otherwise, sack Bailey and replace him with an inflation hawk.
I suspect if you wanted to point a finger at anyone for dropping the ball it's Bailey and the BoE. They were advised to raise interest rates far earlier than they did. Maybe a quick, shorter, sharper shock would be more effective.
You could also question Hunt as to why he has only met the mortgage provider Lobby today when the likes of Martin Lewis were advising action would be needed in 2023 last November.
Incumbency can be such a millstone.
Maybe Reeves has some ideas, maybe not. Your lot are clean out of them.
The old adage of "Oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them" has rarely been truer
No one likes LAB but Keir can start measuring up the curtains now! LAB 41%. Enough for 330 seats +
They are priced in.
Why not a full point tomorrow?
Get it over and done with.
Can someone explain?
I am going to grab some of these tomorrow as I am working from home. They are so dire they are entertaining. YouTube has some good stuff being posted. There’s an account called Nostalgia who posts some great one off plays and dramas.
Loved the original Mike Batt theme, there’s a TOTP that exists with him playing it and, Pans People are dancing to it.
I did watch that play for tomorrow, Crimes, I think you posted. I got it off thebox a few years ago. It was hard going apart from the lovely Sylvestra La Touzel.
Somewhat in the opposite direction - it's a long time since I watched The Brain of Morbius. You've just cost me a few nights viewing!
You ask for evidence. I give it. You say it is not evidence. I give other evidence. You then discount that in a rather crass manner.
All of which gives emphasis to my question - how do *you* define hatred? Because your 'holocaust' comment makes it seem as if your definition is somewhat odd. Is something only 'hate' if it leads to the holocaust?
And BTW, that sort of insipid drip-drip hatred over decades and centuries definitely fed into the holocaust. People demeaning Jews and Judaism. Blaming them for things wrongly. Marking them out as different in a bad way; and all the lazy stereotypes that are still so loved by anti-Semites. And the same can be said for other victims of the camps as well, such as the Romanies and the disabled.
Which is why, whilst free speech is important, so is calling out hate speech and hatred when it occurs.
Pertwee was not only right on and pretty left wing, as a doctor, he also enjoyed sparring with petty pen pushers and bureaucrats like Walker in Sea Devils, Brownrose in Terror of the Autons and Chinn in Claws of Axos.
Now I have a dilemma. Do I watch an episode,of Dalziel and Pascoe and some seaside specials while working from home or do I watch Ambassadors of Death and Mind of Evil.
Said anyone with a 15k or less majority is "at this moment in time" under threat of losing their seat - added: "this is what CCHQ are not telling you."….
Luntz also said while he counted Boris Johnson as a friend, the ex-PM was "behaving horribly" and "Trumpian" and said "he needs to go away."
Some grim gallows humour from Tory MPs in - what were previously not considered - marginal seats... some wondering what to do next. 2/2
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1671565931405770757?s=20
A guy or girl wants to dress as the opposite gender - really dont care and doesn't bother me
A guy or girl wants to go into a toilet based on what they believe their gender is - again dont care
However for prisons, therapy, refuges, sports etc where people have a right to safeguarding and not have to share these spaces with someone of the opposite biological sex that has not transitioned then no they can fuck right off they are a delusional in their belief they should be able to as a scientologist