Thanks @Cyclefree for yet another well-written header. I confess, however, that this whole subject leaves me stone cold.
I have sympathy for trans people who have been treated very badly by society in the past. I have sympathy for women who fear that there are men who would pretend to be trans to perpetrate further offences agains women. I have sympathy for children who are wrongly persuaded they need to change gender and I have sympathy for children who feel trapped in the wrong gender.
For all those people I can see that this is a very important topic, but for the country as a whole, not so much.
I have known two people who transitioned, one through work another socially. Both transitioned to women. For both it was clearly an extremely difficult and brave path to follow. Beyond that, I have no knowledge. It's not a debate I can join in. So forgive me if I post comments on other topics as they get discussed in the thread.
British society has always treated the 'odd' quite well. An imperfect scheme, but not to be ignored.
I do miss the (admittedly imperfect) 1990s dictum of live and let live, replaced by the ideological bigotry of the Twitter extremes.
Quite why trans issues have become suddenly so highly charged despite - as far as I can tell - the numbers involved remaining tiny is, I think, both a mystery and perhaps not a mystery. The bloody internet amplifies both the trans rights extremists and the noisy worriers, at the expense of the live and let livers.
It’s a collision of absolute rights for two protected groups.
To a number of “progressive” people, there can be no compromise on rights. This means that someone has to lose. Hence pick your side and pick your weapons.
I have used ExpressVPN successfully for cricket/sport/drama all over the globe, tho the broadcasters are trying to fight back and thwart them, so you cannot entirely rely on it
Our Now TV has stopped working because it thinks we are using a VPN even though we aren't! Something funny going on with our Internet provider.
TV broadcasters in general have gotten better at clamping down on VPNs and illegal streaming
Quick question, I'm going to be abroad for the 4th and 5th Test. Guessing my NowTV subscription won't work overseas without using a VPN?
And if so, can anyone recommend any VPNs? Preferably free.
Pay up for NordVPN.
Or roll your own for free on Amazon AWS, but that is a fair amount of hassle.
https://github.com/trailofbits/algo Algo takes quite a lot of the hassle away. Though these days I just use Mullvad. We still use Algo for a tunnel into $work though.
I have used ExpressVPN successfully for cricket/sport/drama all over the globe, tho the broadcasters are trying to fight back and thwart them, so you cannot entirely rely on it
Our Now TV has stopped working because it thinks we are using a VPN even though we aren't! Something funny going on with our Internet provider.
TV broadcasters in general have gotten better at clamping down on VPNs and illegal streaming
Gotten? Let's not use Americanisms please.
But gotten is a word from Middle English times.
Not posh though. Apparently.
In olden days, the use of gotten Was looked on as something rotten But now, God knows Anything goes
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
It is simple you accept those that self identify but it doesnt mean they need to go into a biological womens general population (unless post op) you have a seperate prision or wing for transgenders
I think Foxjr2 was at Transpride yesterday with his flatmate who is mtf trans, and a friend since they were in beavers together.
People wanting to support Trans people at a time when transphobia is epidemic, and at least tacitly supported by the government should still be happy and willing to condemn incitement to violence.
Liberating one group should never require oppressing another one.
Beaver scouts one hopes?
I was expelled from the Beavers for dishing out a whisky miniature. No idea why my parents thought it was a good idea to give me a whisky miniature keyring fob other than it possibly kept me away from the abundant heroin washing about at the time.
I think Foxjr2 was at Transpride yesterday with his flatmate who is mtf trans, and a friend since they were in beavers together.
People wanting to support Trans people at a time when transphobia is epidemic, and at least tacitly supported by the government should still be happy and willing to condemn incitement to violence.
Liberating one group should never require oppressing another one.
I have used ExpressVPN successfully for cricket/sport/drama all over the globe, tho the broadcasters are trying to fight back and thwart them, so you cannot entirely rely on it
Our Now TV has stopped working because it thinks we are using a VPN even though we aren't! Something funny going on with our Internet provider.
TV broadcasters in general have gotten better at clamping down on VPNs and illegal streaming
I think Foxjr2 was at Transpride yesterday with his flatmate who is mtf trans, and a friend since they were in beavers together.
People wanting to support Trans people at a time when transphobia is epidemic, and at least tacitly supported by the government should still be happy and willing to condemn incitement to violence.
Liberating one group should never require oppressing another one.
Beaver scouts one hopes?
I was expelled from the Beavers for dishing out a whisky miniature. No idea why my parents thought it was a good idea to give me a whisky miniature keyring fob other than it possibly kept me away from the abundant heroin washing about at the time.
Really, they shouldn't even have let you go to Beavers if there was a lot of heroin being abused there.
Lord knows. He keeps getting himself in bother like this. I don't know why they keep letting him back.
It's easier to keep track of him as Leon; when he used to keep coming back with a new ID, life got very confusing.
Well to a point. His, er, style of posting is distinctive, and so is easier to spot than a poor Russian bot conscript given the shitty pb shift on Saturday mornings…
I think Foxjr2 was at Transpride yesterday with his flatmate who is mtf trans, and a friend since they were in beavers together.
People wanting to support Trans people at a time when transphobia is epidemic, and at least tacitly supported by the government should still be happy and willing to condemn incitement to violence.
Liberating one group should never require oppressing another one.
Beaver scouts one hopes?
I was expelled from the Beavers for dishing out a whisky miniature. No idea why my parents thought it was a good idea to give me a whisky miniature keyring fob other than it possibly kept me away from the abundant heroin washing about at the time.
Really, they shouldn't even have let you go to Beavers if there was a lot of heroin being abused there.
Sounds a bit wilder than Foxjr2 at beavers. Hot dogs was as high risk as it got...
OT ITV now A Spy Among Friends about Kim Philby is brilliant imo.
I watched it on ITVX and found it disappointing. It introduced a fictional character. It was based on a Ben McIntyre book and his books are well researched non-fiction.
I think Foxjr2 was at Transpride yesterday with his flatmate who is mtf trans, and a friend since they were in beavers together.
People wanting to support Trans people at a time when transphobia is epidemic, and at least tacitly supported by the government should still be happy and willing to condemn incitement to violence.
Liberating one group should never require oppressing another one.
Beaver scouts one hopes?
I was expelled from the Beavers for dishing out a whisky miniature. No idea why my parents thought it was a good idea to give me a whisky miniature keyring fob other than it possibly kept me away from the abundant heroin washing about at the time.
Really, they shouldn't even have let you go to Beavers if there was a lot of heroin being abused there.
Sounds a bit wilder than Foxjr2 at beavers. Hot dogs was as high risk as it got...
Given what we are hearing these days about ultra-processed foods that probably was quite risky.
I have used ExpressVPN successfully for cricket/sport/drama all over the globe, tho the broadcasters are trying to fight back and thwart them, so you cannot entirely rely on it
Our Now TV has stopped working because it thinks we are using a VPN even though we aren't! Something funny going on with our Internet provider.
TV broadcasters in general have gotten better at clamping down on VPNs and illegal streaming
Gotten? Let's not use Americanisms please.
But gotten is a word from Middle English times.
I know, but it fell out of use for a long time.
So stop being such a nasty authoritarian on what words people can and cannot use.
The English language evolves and the language of Shakespeare needs no protection.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
I think Foxjr2 was at Transpride yesterday with his flatmate who is mtf trans, and a friend since they were in beavers together.
People wanting to support Trans people at a time when transphobia is epidemic, and at least tacitly supported by the government should still be happy and willing to condemn incitement to violence.
Liberating one group should never require oppressing another one.
Beaver scouts one hopes?
I was expelled from the Beavers for dishing out a whisky miniature. No idea why my parents thought it was a good idea to give me a whisky miniature keyring fob other than it possibly kept me away from the abundant heroin washing about at the time.
Really, they shouldn't even have let you go to Beavers if there was a lot of heroin being abused there.
Sounds a bit wilder than Foxjr2 at beavers. Hot dogs was as high risk as it got...
Given what we are hearing these days about ultra-processed foods that probably was quite risky.
As opposed to Vegan Pesticide Free Organic Duchy Original smack.
I think the main issue there was the Red Arrows mistiming their fly past by around 30 seconds.
On topic: Thanks for this Cyclefree, I also agree Farooq's and Northern_Al's point to more directly engage with Sadiq Khan's office about this, if you haven't already.
I have used ExpressVPN successfully for cricket/sport/drama all over the globe, tho the broadcasters are trying to fight back and thwart them, so you cannot entirely rely on it
Our Now TV has stopped working because it thinks we are using a VPN even though we aren't! Something funny going on with our Internet provider.
TV broadcasters in general have gotten better at clamping down on VPNs and illegal streaming
Gotten? Let's not use Americanisms please.
But gotten is a word from Middle English times.
Much like when pointing out another's misspellings someone is likely to make one themselves, or when declaring some arbitrary grammatical rule probably based on Latin has been violated that it is likely not to accord with historical English usage, it is almost certain when complaining about an americanism that a) it is not an americanism, or b) they use other americanisms without realising it.
I have used ExpressVPN successfully for cricket/sport/drama all over the globe, tho the broadcasters are trying to fight back and thwart them, so you cannot entirely rely on it
Our Now TV has stopped working because it thinks we are using a VPN even though we aren't! Something funny going on with our Internet provider.
TV broadcasters in general have gotten better at clamping down on VPNs and illegal streaming
Gotten? Let's not use Americanisms please.
But gotten is a word from Middle English times.
I know, but it fell out of use for a long time.
So now your complaint is not that it is an americanism, because it isn't, but that it is archaic?
Why did you not say that initially then?
And do you not often complain about people doing new things rather than sticking with what works? Should you not celebrate the returning use of an historic English word?
Catching up with the local news, as medical treatment winds down for a week or two, and apologies if this one has been done.
Ashfield may become a two-way rather than three-way competition for the next General Election, since Jason Zadrozny (Council Leader) has been charged with a whole suite of offences around fraud and tax evasion (going back to 2007) plus a possession of Class A drugs charge, and Tom Hollis (former Deputy Council Leader) has also been charged with offences around failing to declare a pecuniary interest.
(At the last County election this spring, Hollis lost half his vote from approx 40% to under 20% but just beat Labour, and Zadrozny increased his from approx 50% to 63%.)
Interesting that Hollis has already been in court (and found guilty) for two seperate charges (harassment and careless driving) in the last year but still stayed on as a cabinet member.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
I have used ExpressVPN successfully for cricket/sport/drama all over the globe, tho the broadcasters are trying to fight back and thwart them, so you cannot entirely rely on it
Our Now TV has stopped working because it thinks we are using a VPN even though we aren't! Something funny going on with our Internet provider.
TV broadcasters in general have gotten better at clamping down on VPNs and illegal streaming
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
I haven't done a statistical analysis but it feels like tennis is more dominated by eastern and south-eastern European players than ever before.
I haven't either, but a caption came up during one of the ladies' matches today that this year's Wimbledon has 19 US ladies and 11 Czech ladies competing.
I haven't done a statistical analysis but it feels like tennis is more dominated by eastern and south-eastern European players than ever before.
I haven't either, but a caption came up during one of the ladies' matches today that this year's Wimbledon has 19 US ladies and 11 Czech ladies competing.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
Hurkacz just made a right dogs mess of the tiebreak against Djokovic. 3 sets points and couldn't take one of them.
Not that uncommon an occurrence to lose 3 points in a row. Assuming evenly matched opponents it will happen once per every 8 sequences of 3 points; give the server a bit of an advantage and it will still happen 10% of the time. Tsitsipas managed the same feat against Murray, and still came out ahead.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Except, they don't necessarily like to be weaponised. Why would they?
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
I think Foxjr2 was at Transpride yesterday with his flatmate who is mtf trans, and a friend since they were in beavers together.
People wanting to support Trans people at a time when transphobia is epidemic, and at least tacitly supported by the government should still be happy and willing to condemn incitement to violence.
Liberating one group should never require oppressing another one.
Beaver scouts one hopes?
I was expelled from the Beavers for dishing out a whisky miniature. No idea why my parents thought it was a good idea to give me a whisky miniature keyring fob other than it possibly kept me away from the abundant heroin washing about at the time.
Really, they shouldn't even have let you go to Beavers if there was a lot of heroin being abused there.
Sounds a bit wilder than Foxjr2 at beavers. Hot dogs was as high risk as it got...
In Leicestershire in the 1990s? You are probably quite right, given the CJD cluster in a village there. Though crossing the road on the way to the scout hall was probably riskier overall.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that they are wrong. And implying that we have your best interests at heart cos you're too thick to realise it has limited utility.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Except, they don't necessarily like to be weaponised. Why would they?
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
a) they are different from other women - they are men b) you do not have to respect their choice.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
He did point out that ghoti is pronounced fish, mind you (gh as in cough, o as in women, ti as in ignition).
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Except, they don't necessarily like to be weaponised. Why would they?
It takes two to weaponise?
You are not waving here, you are drowning. Just leave it.
Hurkacz just made a right dogs mess of the tiebreak against Djokovic. 3 sets points and couldn't take one of them.
Not that uncommon an occurrence to lose 3 points in a row. Assuming evenly matched opponents it will happen once per every 8 sequences of 3 points; give the server a bit of an advantage and it will still happen 10% of the time. Tsitsipas managed the same feat against Murray, and still came out ahead.
It was the manner in which he lost the points. In one particular point he had a very easy forehand to the open court, all he had to do was place it somewhere towards to corner and it would have been a winner. Instead he mishit it into the net.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
I'd vote for spelling reform to make ritten Inglish completely fonetik.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
I'd vote for spelling reform to make ritten Inglish completely fonetik.
Ide vote for spelling reeform too make ritten Inglish compleetlee fonetick.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Except, they don't necessarily like to be weaponised. Why would they?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Except, they don't necessarily like to be weaponised. Why would they?
It takes two to weaponise?
You are not waving here, you are drowning. Just leave it.
That's funny. Still waiting for a counter argument from you. Richard Tyndall has done me the courtesy of one. So. I'll airily dismiss your airy dismissal.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
He did point out that ghoti is pronounced fish, mind you (gh as in cough, o as in women, ti as in ignition).
Yes, he had some wit. But the spelling reform stuff is silly. There isn't a problem there to be solved. Better to spend the time and effort on teaching Esperanto.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
I'd vote for spelling reform to make ritten Inglish completely fonetik.
Ide vote for spelling reeform too make ritten Inglish compleetlee fonetick.
Id vot for speliŋ reform also to mak riten Iŋlish kompletele fonetik.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
There are some groups, such as LGB Alliance, who are prepared to stand up against the likes of stonewall and mermaids.
We have already seen them being attacked as a consequence.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
He did point out that ghoti is pronounced fish, mind you (gh as in cough, o as in women, ti as in ignition).
Yes, he had some wit. But the spelling reform stuff is silly. There isn't a problem there to be solved. Better to spend the time and effort on teaching Esperanto.
Strange that he should on forty fix Who did so well with twenty-six.
(Annoyingly, I can't remember who wrote that. I thought it might have been Susan Mitchell but she died before Shaw did.)
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
He did point out that ghoti is pronounced fish, mind you (gh as in cough, o as in women, ti as in ignition).
Yes, he had some wit. But the spelling reform stuff is silly. There isn't a problem there to be solved. Better to spend the time and effort on teaching Esperanto.
English is now the lingua franca that Eperanto once aspired to be. Spelling reform dies on the rock of accents and pronunciation: if we and Americans cannot agree how to pronounce schedule, who is to say how to spell it?
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
He did point out that ghoti is pronounced fish, mind you (gh as in cough, o as in women, ti as in ignition).
Yes, he had some wit. But the spelling reform stuff is silly. There isn't a problem there to be solved. Better to spend the time and effort on teaching Esperanto.
English is now the lingua franca that Eperanto once aspired to be.
Which is rather amusing given what 'lingua franca' translates as.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
George Bernard Shaw used "gotten" IIRC but he was Irish originally.
Shaw was a bit odd, though. He wrote "shew" instead of "show". Wanted spelling reform. I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
He did point out that ghoti is pronounced fish, mind you (gh as in cough, o as in women, ti as in ignition).
Yes, he had some wit. But the spelling reform stuff is silly. There isn't a problem there to be solved. Better to spend the time and effort on teaching Esperanto.
English is now the lingua franca that Eperanto once aspired to be.
One of the ideas with Esperanto is that it should be nobody's native tongue.
I'm English and recently met a Slovak woman and the only language we had in common was Russian. Rusty in both cases, but it sufficed.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
I haven't done a statistical analysis but it feels like tennis is more dominated by eastern and south-eastern European players than ever before.
I was idly thinking the same thing, shortly after wondering why Gaelic Football and Hurling weren't more popular among the association football supporters who bemoan the loss of the more violent dimension to that game.
Hurling is incredibly violent. I'm sure there's a large audience for that sort of sport if they only knew about it.
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
Well quite. This may be a weird question, but what do they do with a non-trans woman who rapes another woman and is sent to jail?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
Well quite. This may be a weird question, but what do they do with a non-trans woman who rapes another woman and is sent to jail?
(And FFS Moonrabit )
On a point of pedantry, a biological woman cannot commit rape as it is defined in English law.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
Well quite. This may be a weird question, but what do they do with a non-trans woman who rapes another woman and is sent to jail?
(And FFS Moonrabit )
On a point of pedantry, a biological woman cannot commit rape as it is defined in English law.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
Organisations like BLM, Stonewall and Mermaids need to be put out to grass.
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
Well quite. This may be a weird question, but what do they do with a non-trans woman who rapes another woman and is sent to jail?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
It really doesn't.
You just aren't very good at this, are you?
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Take your time, and don't trouble to publish your answers because 1. I am going to bed and 2. your conclusion that 2+2 = 5, or 3, is not going to alter my world picture.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Comments
To a number of “progressive” people, there can be no compromise on rights. This means that someone has to lose. Hence pick your side and pick your weapons.
Newton Emerson should do a podcast on this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66150234
RIP, Nuria.
It’s like there has been a “Passover” and we’ve been spared 🫢
I’d better check my elder brother is okay.
Was looked on as something rotten
But now, God knows
Anything goes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/65584743
The English language evolves and the language of Shakespeare needs no protection.
On topic: Thanks for this Cyclefree, I also agree Farooq's and Northern_Al's point to more directly engage with Sadiq Khan's office about this, if you haven't already.
They think it's all over.
It is now!
Why did you not say that initially then?
And do you not often complain about people doing new things rather than sticking with what works? Should you not celebrate the returning use of an historic English word?
The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights.
Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You need to explain how someone supposedly north of the border has avatar for obscure English village football team!
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
I'm not convinced "gotten" doesn't ever appear in proper native BrEng. "He's gotten over it now."
Which is a bugger as it was only 13 years ago.
An outsider telling them that they are wrong. And implying that we have your best interests at heart cos you're too thick to realise it has limited utility.
b) you do not have to respect their choice.
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
Still waiting for a counter argument from you.
Richard Tyndall has done me the courtesy of one.
So. I'll airily dismiss your airy dismissal.
And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
But the spelling reform stuff is silly. There isn't a problem there to be solved. Better to spend the time and effort on teaching Esperanto.
We have already seen them being attacked as a consequence.
Who did so well with twenty-six.
(Annoyingly, I can't remember who wrote that. I thought it might have been Susan Mitchell but she died before Shaw did.)
I say it is for trans people to decide that.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
I'm English and recently met a Slovak woman and the only language we had in common was Russian. Rusty in both cases, but it sufficed.
Hurling is incredibly violent. I'm sure there's a large audience for that sort of sport if they only knew about it.
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/barbie-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0xmda5otq3
(If this doesn't display, the More Info tab under Content Advice is the good bit, motherf*ers)
(I am sadly unable to direct to the equivalent Vietnamese page)
(And FFS Moonrabit
We can all be wrong.
Are you 100% convinced you are right?
Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
It would be sexual assault.
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
They have been indulged for far too long.
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers
is organisation 2 inimical to left handers
can question 1 only be answered by left handers
can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Take your time, and don't trouble to publish your answers because 1. I am going to bed and 2. your conclusion that 2+2 = 5, or 3, is not going to alter my world picture.
You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all.
So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.