While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
I just want to say that I do support your right to identify as a mediocre football team
ETA: Ooops, ban hammer incoming from TSE, I guess? Must be like making negative comments about Radiohead in the presence of RCS...
LOL.
Though something tells me if I started selling myself as being Liverpool Football Club and trying to make money off the fact that I am LFC, then I would get letters from lawyers pretty damned quickly.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
I've never had a TV. They sometimes ask to come in your house. If you say "Go away", they are also supposed to go away. You have no duty to answer any of their questions or to identify yourself. Lots of things are unlawful without a licence. I don't expect the state (in this case the BBC, a state body) to send goons to my house to "investigate" whether I'm engaged in such things (keeping tigers, for instance) when they have ZERO evidence to suggest that I am. Photograph the person too.
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
What ROI did Macquarie achieve?
Good luck working that out.
They paid £8bn for it in 2006 - to the German RWE, which bought it for a bit over half of that. Between 2006 and 2017, when they sold the last of their equity stake (probably at a profit), company debt rose from £3.2bn to £10.5bn. Dividends on the equity averaged £280m per year during their ownership. This is for what ought to be a boring utility, with a turnover of a bit over £2bn per annum.
You'd also have to know how much of the debt was taken out by funds under Macquarie's control, and track their shareholdings during that period.
It would need someone to spend quite some time crunching the numbers (that ought to be Ofwat's purpose, but a brief glance at their annual reports on the industry suggests to me that they take a bit too much on trust). Let me know if you have the time.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
Well, I agree with you, but many football supporters do seem to believe that they ARE the club. I'm always amused at my in-laws talking about 'when we played West Ham last season' as if they were all there on the pitch. [I accept this is just how football supporters talk, of course, and it isn't unique to football. But I'm always slightly amused by it.]
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
Given the next government (nearly certain), the change from license fee to internet access tax is inevitable now, I think.
Politically, it is the simplest solution.
If you provide internet access in the U.K. (mobile or fixed), then there will be x added to the bill.
Lots of other countries have a license fee. Browsing through the Wikipedia list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence , I was surprised to see that the commonest option seems to be an addition to the electricity bill.
Easiest to collect. Very difficult to opt out of. Why are you surprised?
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
Well, I agree with you, but many football supporters do seem to believe that they ARE the club. I'm always amused at my in-laws talking about 'when we played West Ham last season' as if they were all there on the pitch. [I accept this is just how football supporters talk, of course, and it isn't unique to football. But I'm always slightly amused by it.]
Many supporters believe that a club is a combination of the players, etc and the supporters. Most notably in Italy.
But here also look at the machinations when Man U was sold.
Plus the singing "We are...."
So actually I might have to go back to @Barty to say that he could very well be LFC.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
I just want to say that I do support your right to identify as a mediocre football team
ETA: Ooops, ban hammer incoming from TSE, I guess? Must be like making negative comments about Radiohead in the presence of RCS...
LOL.
Though something tells me if I started selling myself as being Liverpool Football Club and trying to make money off the fact that I am LFC, then I would get letters from lawyers pretty damned quickly.
True. I guess natal male claiming to be $famouswoman would face similar issues.
Anyway, this debate is (i) trans and (ii) way off into tortuous analogies, so I'll withdraw and let you and Topping carry on
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
As I understand the economic model, people running OnlyFans are generally doing so as individuals. There are no Daves in call centres.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
Well one part of the debate here is that gender is a cultural creation. Sex is not (IIUC). So cultural creations are all over the place and so it is with this current phase. As I said I have no idea whether in 50-100 times we will have embraced self-identification for 73 genders or it will all be seen as an amusing fad.
My other point was that it is often useful (but not definitive) to substitute "homosexual" for "trans person" to be able to see some of the issue in an historical, cultural context.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
I've never had a TV. They sometimes ask to come in your house. If you say "Go away", they are also supposed to go away. You have no duty to answer any of their questions or to identify yourself. Lots of things are unlawful without a licence. I don't expect the state (in this case the BBC, a state body) to send goons to my house to "investigate" whether I'm engaged in such things (keeping tigers, for instance) when they have ZERO evidence to suggest that I am. Photograph the person too.
What we need in the 21st century is a fleet of Internet Detector Vans.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
As I understand the economic model, people running OnlyFans are generally doing so as individuals. There are no Daves in call centres.
It is a nice idea that there would be banks of Scottish people in call centres fielding and relaying requests to OnlyFans participants saying, in their eminently trustable accents "so you want her to do XXX with XXX while XXX"
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
But there are no rights and no safeguarding associated with being a Liverpool fan.
There might be rights associated with being a Liverpool member, but that does have gatekeeping.
I once signed up to be a Manchester United member. Man Utd vs LFC was happening in the League Cup on my brothers birthday and no away fan tickets were available, but home fan tickets were available for Man Utd members (even those with no history). We signed up and bought tickets to give to him for his birthday and we went to the match and sat in the Man Utd fan area, despite being LFC fans.
When entering one of the stewards saw I was wearing an LFC shirt under my jacket which wasn't zipped up and he advised me to zip up the jacket and not to cheer if Liverpool scored, or we'd be kicked out of the ground.
Women's rights can and do have gatekeeping. If someone wants to claim they're a woman, when they're not, then they may not get access to those rights.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Although I agree with the thrust of your argument and tend to go for a splitting the difference approach, I don't think it works here. That's because the issue is at least as much about conflict of risks as about conflict of rights and those risks aren't balanced.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
I've never had a TV. They sometimes ask to come in your house. If you say "Go away", they are also supposed to go away. You have no duty to answer any of their questions or to identify yourself. Lots of things are unlawful without a licence. I don't expect the state (in this case the BBC, a state body) to send goons to my house to "investigate" whether I'm engaged in such things (keeping tigers, for instance) when they have ZERO evidence to suggest that I am. Photograph the person too.
When it comes to technology, I tend to think we probably had just the right amount of it in about 1995.
Mr. Gezou, when I did a check of Craigslist for gigs in February, there was an OF listing for someone handling correspondence 'as' the creator (although, to their credit, it did stress the need not to pressurise for cash or otherwise be a dick).
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
It's not a good analogy because there is no real possibility of a conflict between the stated identity and objective reality as judged by others. At most someone could be lying about being a Liverpool fan, but whether or not it is true is entirely in their own mind (notwithstanding HYUFD-style purity tests about not being a real fan unless you were present for the 1965 FA Cup final).
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
But there are no rights and no safeguarding associated with being a Liverpool fan.
There might be rights associated with being a Liverpool member, but that does have gatekeeping.
I once signed up to be a Manchester United member. Man Utd vs LFC was happening in the League Cup on my brothers birthday and no away fan tickets were available, but home fan tickets were available for Man Utd members (even those with no history). We signed up and bought tickets to give to him for his birthday and we went to the match and sat in the Man Utd fan area, despite being LFC fans.
When entering one of the stewards saw I was wearing an LFC shirt under my jacket which wasn't zipped up and he advised me to zip up the jacket and not to cheer if Liverpool scored, or we'd be kicked out of the ground.
Women's rights can and do have gatekeeping. If someone wants to claim they're a woman, when they're not, then they may not get access to those rights.
Safeguarding, as you have said yourself, and I agree, is vitally important, particularly in sportsnprisons. And AIUI, and especially after the Scottish debacle, there is a number of wings in prisons that have been set aside for such cases. Sports, meanwhile, are deciding for themselves who can and can't compete in which category.
But that was not my point. My point was that if you believe you are a Liverpool fan then you might object if you needed a sign off from me before you could actually be treated as a Liverpool fan. Let's torture the analogy. You identify as a Liverpool fan, have a Liverpool scarf and are wearing a Liverpool top. And you are going to watch Liverpool vs Everton. But the stewards at the ground don't agree and send you to the away end. Who needs the safeguarding in that instance? The person doing the identifying.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
????
I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make; and I have not heard anything about this Thai case.
There is an infamous (ie on twitter) case - no idea if it is true - of someone going to get their child (16yr old I think) surgically transitioned in Thailand because it is the only place where doing that at that age is allowed.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
As I understand the economic model, people running OnlyFans are generally doing so as individuals. There are no Daves in call centres.
It is a nice idea that there would be banks of Scottish people in call centres fielding and relaying requests to OnlyFans participants saying, in their eminently trustable accents "so you want her to do XXX with XXX while XXX"
https://youtu.be/nsK_6VSmlMI Is a useful explainer on the economics of OnlyFans. (NSFS: it’s on YouTube, so there’s no naughty bits on show, but it is about porn.)
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Although I agree with the thrust of your argument and tend to go for a splitting the difference approach, I don't think it works here. That's because the issue is at least as much about conflict of risks as about conflict of rights and those risks aren't balanced.
I'm not sure that's right, assuming am understanding your argument correctly. To take a couple of contentious situations in this space: trans women in women's prisons - can pose risks to female prisoners, can be at risk themselves in male prisons; gender reassignment surgery or puberty blockers in young people - risk taking irreversible decisions at an age when the person is too young to know for sure or may be going through a phase, versus risk an already distressed person suffers further distress owing to their gender dysphoria, ends up attempting suicide. I just don't think there are easy answers here.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
It's not a good analogy because there is no real possibility of a conflict between the stated identity and objective reality as judged by others. At most someone could be lying about being a Liverpool fan, but whether or not it is true is entirely in their own mind (notwithstanding HYUFD-style purity tests about not being a real fan unless you were present for the 1965 FA Cup final).
The BBC wanted to publish the name of a man who has a high public profile, referred to as "WFZ", and who has been accused by complainants of committing sexual offences. The man has not been charged. He took the BBC to court and the judge issued a restraining order preventing his public identification.
There is no suggestion that this man works or has ever worked for the BBC.
The following are quotes from the court judgment.
"On 5th June 2023, a journalist in the BBC's News Investigation team, wrote [the man] a 'Right of Reply' letter about an investigation the BBC had conducted into sexual misconduct allegations against him. It said they had spoken to a number of women who had given detailed accounts of behaviour by him including the commission of serious sexual offences. It said they intended to identify him in their reporting of this investigation."
"Further indications from the BBC about the content of the proposed reporting include its confirmation in a solicitor's letter of 7th June that its purpose was the exposure of serious and repeated alleged sexual misconduct against numerous victims, and giving effect to the desire of the victims to have their allegations against the Claimant made public, but that it was not the BBC's intention to publish 'extensive or graphic detail about the allegations'."
"The Claimant is a nationally (and internationally) known name."
"As to content, [the BBC's] evidence is that the proposed reports will state that the BBC has found that at least a quarter of businesses in the sector in which the Claimant works have had employees investigated by the police for serious sexual offences, yet despite this the sector does not have any policies or procedures for employees who are accused of violence against women [...] "
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
But there are no rights and no safeguarding associated with being a Liverpool fan.
There might be rights associated with being a Liverpool member, but that does have gatekeeping.
I once signed up to be a Manchester United member. Man Utd vs LFC was happening in the League Cup on my brothers birthday and no away fan tickets were available, but home fan tickets were available for Man Utd members (even those with no history). We signed up and bought tickets to give to him for his birthday and we went to the match and sat in the Man Utd fan area, despite being LFC fans.
When entering one of the stewards saw I was wearing an LFC shirt under my jacket which wasn't zipped up and he advised me to zip up the jacket and not to cheer if Liverpool scored, or we'd be kicked out of the ground.
Women's rights can and do have gatekeeping. If someone wants to claim they're a woman, when they're not, then they may not get access to those rights.
Safeguarding, as you have said yourself, and I agree, is vitally important, particularly in sportsnprisons. And AIUI, and especially after the Scottish debacle, there is a number of wings in prisons that have been set aside for such cases. Sports, meanwhile, are deciding for themselves who can and can't compete in which category.
But that was not my point. My point was that if you believe you are a Liverpool fan then you might object if you needed a sign off from me before you could actually be treated as a Liverpool fan. Let's torture the analogy. You identify as a Liverpool fan, have a Liverpool scarf and are wearing a Liverpool top. And you are going to watch Liverpool vs Everton. But the stewards at the ground don't agree and send you to the away end. Who needs the safeguarding in that instance? The person doing the identifying.
Most people I have seen on this board posting though and I include myself have no objection to the idea of self id. We do have an issue with self id giving you the rights to enter womens safe spaces or sports where being a male through puberty gives you an advantage in the sport.
In particular for me at least it would include womens prisons, womens refuges, open womens changing rooms. All of these I would not be concerned with post op. In all those cases the answer is to provide separate space for the self id'ed, individual cubicles for changing in, a separate wing for a prison where they are segregated from the general population, separate refuges for the trans. None of these things would prevent them self id'ing and living as a woman.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
Well, I agree with you, but many football supporters do seem to believe that they ARE the club. I'm always amused at my in-laws talking about 'when we played West Ham last season' as if they were all there on the pitch. [I accept this is just how football supporters talk, of course, and it isn't unique to football. But I'm always slightly amused by it.]
Many supporters believe that a club is a combination of the players, etc and the supporters. Most notably in Italy.
But here also look at the machinations when Man U was sold.
Plus the singing "We are...."
So actually I might have to go back to @Barty to say that he could very well be LFC.
Well, yes, but they're wrong! Man U fans were VERY upset when Man U was sold to the Glazers - but seemingly entirely relaxed five years or so previously when the club was floated on the stock exchange i.e. sold to anyone who wanted it.
I think some clubs in Italy genuinely are owned by the fans in some respect. And I think (?) Bournemouth in this country is.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
But there are no rights and no safeguarding associated with being a Liverpool fan.
There might be rights associated with being a Liverpool member, but that does have gatekeeping.
I once signed up to be a Manchester United member. Man Utd vs LFC was happening in the League Cup on my brothers birthday and no away fan tickets were available, but home fan tickets were available for Man Utd members (even those with no history). We signed up and bought tickets to give to him for his birthday and we went to the match and sat in the Man Utd fan area, despite being LFC fans.
When entering one of the stewards saw I was wearing an LFC shirt under my jacket which wasn't zipped up and he advised me to zip up the jacket and not to cheer if Liverpool scored, or we'd be kicked out of the ground.
Women's rights can and do have gatekeeping. If someone wants to claim they're a woman, when they're not, then they may not get access to those rights.
Safeguarding, as you have said yourself, and I agree, is vitally important, particularly in sportsnprisons. And AIUI, and especially after the Scottish debacle, there is a number of wings in prisons that have been set aside for such cases. Sports, meanwhile, are deciding for themselves who can and can't compete in which category.
But that was not my point. My point was that if you believe you are a Liverpool fan then you might object if you needed a sign off from me before you could actually be treated as a Liverpool fan. Let's torture the analogy. You identify as a Liverpool fan, have a Liverpool scarf and are wearing a Liverpool top. And you are going to watch Liverpool vs Everton. But the stewards at the ground don't agree and send you to the away end. Who needs the safeguarding in that instance? The person doing the identifying.
No, the stewards. They need to do their job. That's what they're there for.
Take the example I gave, I went to Old Trafford for Man Utd v LFC, carrying a Manchester United home supporters ticket, but wearing an LFC shirt. The steward raised a concern. I zipped up my jacket and followed his instructions.
Had he said he was refusing to let me in, I would have kicked myself at my stupidity for having my jacket open when I spoke to him so that he saw my shirt. I wouldn't have loudly screamed in his face that I identify as a Manchester United fan (whether I am one or not, and though I'm wearing an LFC shirt).
Self-identification doesn't trump safeguarding, because that defeats the entire purpose of having safeguarding in place.
Mr. Gezou, when I did a check of Craigslist for gigs in February, there was an OF listing for someone handling correspondence 'as' the creator (although, to their credit, it did stress the need not to pressurise for cash or otherwise be a dick).
Bondegezou is one word. It’s not a “The name’s Gezou. Bond E Gezou,” thing.
Interesting. There are many OnlyFans creators. (Not all are porn: I understand there’s a big chess community on OF.) It seems likely that practice varies. It would help our mutual understanding if the next time you see a listing like that, you then apply and find out what it’s like. Until that time, I would suggest that someone recruited off Craigslist is a different scale of outsourcing to a call centre. However, I have no experience of such things. (Employing call centres, that is. I have rung call centres.)
Presumably everyone just gets ChatGPT to do the answers for them now…
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
????
I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make; and I have not heard anything about this Thai case.
There is an infamous (ie on twitter) case - no idea if it is true - of someone going to get their child (16yr old I think) surgically transitioned in Thailand because it is the only place where doing that at that age is allowed.
Ah, thanks to those who responded.
This is absolutely not a gotcha, and I intend to stand by my undertaking to avoid this subject altogether. But just to tidy up: the story is as solidly documented as such things possibly can be, and the woman was as mainstream as you get - CEO of Mermaids. It reads like an urban myth, it is rock solid fact. I am sure your instincts about run of the mill trans people are good and sound, but if you align yourself with a movement you need to take a good hard look at its other members.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Although I agree with the thrust of your argument and tend to go for a splitting the difference approach, I don't think it works here. That's because the issue is at least as much about conflict of risks as about conflict of rights and those risks aren't balanced.
I'm not sure that's right, assuming am understanding your argument correctly. To take a couple of contentious situations in this space: trans women in women's prisons - can pose risks to female prisoners, can be at risk themselves in male prisons; gender reassignment surgery or puberty blockers in young people - risk taking irreversible decisions at an age when the person is too young to know for sure or may be going through a phase, versus risk an already distressed person suffers further distress owing to their gender dysphoria, ends up attempting suicide. I just don't think there are easy answers here.
It's not just about whether there are easy answers but whether there are correct answers.
Take 'conversion therapy', for example. If you believe that the dilemma facing trans people is that they are trapped in the wrong body, then any psychological process which has the aim of helping them accept the body they have been given is seen as futile and cruel and ought to be banned. On the other hand, if you reject this concept then an outcome where someone decides they don't need 'reassignment' after all a good outcome, and seeing it as a tragic fate that must be avoided is perverse.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Yes; it's like trying to remember what your religion is in England between about 1534 and 1661. No idea, can't remember. "My religion is the King's/Queen's religion" would usually do, but not from sometime in the 1640s till 1660.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
Why do I get the horrible feeling that the end of that story is "...and then he was burned at the stake."?
Remarkably he died as he lived, the vicar of Morebath. Duffy's book on his life is one of the recent glories of 16th century English church history.
As part of my current MA I had to do a critical review and chose to do it on The Vicar of Morebath.
The BBC wanted to publish the name of a man who has a high public profile, referred to as "WFZ", and who has been accused by complainants of committing sexual offences. The man has not been charged. He took the BBC to court and the judge issued a restraining order preventing his public identification.
There is no suggestion that this man works or has ever worked for the BBC.
The following are quotes from the court judgment.
"On 5th June 2023, a journalist in the BBC's News Investigation team, wrote [the man] a 'Right of Reply' letter about an investigation the BBC had conducted into sexual misconduct allegations against him. It said they had spoken to a number of women who had given detailed accounts of behaviour by him including the commission of serious sexual offences. It said they intended to identify him in their reporting of this investigation."
"Further indications from the BBC about the content of the proposed reporting include its confirmation in a solicitor's letter of 7th June that its purpose was the exposure of serious and repeated alleged sexual misconduct against numerous victims, and giving effect to the desire of the victims to have their allegations against the Claimant made public, but that it was not the BBC's intention to publish 'extensive or graphic detail about the allegations'."
"The Claimant is a nationally (and internationally) known name."
"As to content, [the BBC's] evidence is that the proposed reports will state that the BBC has found that at least a quarter of businesses in the sector in which the Claimant works have had employees investigated by the police for serious sexual offences, yet despite this the sector does not have any policies or procedures for employees who are accused of violence against women [...] "
Thank you for the link, which I have briefly scanned. I understand the argument within it, although I am not sure it is sustainable in these days of I MUST KNOW IMMEDIATELY. Yes, it may be relevant to the BBC kerfuffle.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
There have been people born of one sex living the life of and/or presenting as the other sex for most of recorded history and presumably before. There have also been long-running traditions in parts of the world of more than 2 genders.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
But there are no rights and no safeguarding associated with being a Liverpool fan.
There might be rights associated with being a Liverpool member, but that does have gatekeeping.
I once signed up to be a Manchester United member. Man Utd vs LFC was happening in the League Cup on my brothers birthday and no away fan tickets were available, but home fan tickets were available for Man Utd members (even those with no history). We signed up and bought tickets to give to him for his birthday and we went to the match and sat in the Man Utd fan area, despite being LFC fans.
When entering one of the stewards saw I was wearing an LFC shirt under my jacket which wasn't zipped up and he advised me to zip up the jacket and not to cheer if Liverpool scored, or we'd be kicked out of the ground.
Women's rights can and do have gatekeeping. If someone wants to claim they're a woman, when they're not, then they may not get access to those rights.
Safeguarding, as you have said yourself, and I agree, is vitally important, particularly in sportsnprisons. And AIUI, and especially after the Scottish debacle, there is a number of wings in prisons that have been set aside for such cases. Sports, meanwhile, are deciding for themselves who can and can't compete in which category.
But that was not my point. My point was that if you believe you are a Liverpool fan then you might object if you needed a sign off from me before you could actually be treated as a Liverpool fan. Let's torture the analogy. You identify as a Liverpool fan, have a Liverpool scarf and are wearing a Liverpool top. And you are going to watch Liverpool vs Everton. But the stewards at the ground don't agree and send you to the away end. Who needs the safeguarding in that instance? The person doing the identifying.
No, the stewards. They need to do their job. That's what they're there for.
Take the example I gave, I went to Old Trafford for Man Utd v LFC, carrying a Manchester United home supporters ticket, but wearing an LFC shirt. The steward raised a concern. I zipped up my jacket and followed his instructions.
Had he said he was refusing to let me in, I would have kicked myself at my stupidity for having my jacket open when I spoke to him so that he saw my shirt. I wouldn't have loudly screamed in his face that I identify as a Manchester United fan (whether I am one or not, and though I'm wearing an LFC shirt).
Self-identification doesn't trump safeguarding, because that defeats the entire purpose of having safeguarding in place.
Those stewards don't get to tell you who you really support. They look at the manifestations of that support and take a view but they don't get to say what the "truth" is.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
Bit early to have been on the singing ginger
Yes, I am impressed. Successful day panhandling yesterday?
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
The modern phenomenon is the attempt to deny that there is any third category such as the one to which you refer, because transwomen are literally women and you’re a bigot if you think otherwise.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
One of the missing features at the moment from the public square is the essential liberal idea of 'incommensurability', not only because it is hard to spell. 'Value pluralism' has similar ideas.
Basically not all good or potentially good things are consistent with all other good or potentially good things. (Maximal freedom is not always consistent with maximal safety - ask any parent of small children).
So for example, the value of 'women only' spaces is obvious and always has been. There is also a strong but contested value of 'gender fluidity' which may come into conflict with aspects of 'women only' spaces, either because of true principle on both sides, or because of system manipulation (as alleged sometimes in the prison system).
Discussions that don't recognise this truth tend towards ludicrous forms of authoritarianism and denial of the obvious. And there is no point in thinking everything can be solved, because it is axiomatic that it can't.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
But there are no rights and no safeguarding associated with being a Liverpool fan.
There might be rights associated with being a Liverpool member, but that does have gatekeeping.
I once signed up to be a Manchester United member. Man Utd vs LFC was happening in the League Cup on my brothers birthday and no away fan tickets were available, but home fan tickets were available for Man Utd members (even those with no history). We signed up and bought tickets to give to him for his birthday and we went to the match and sat in the Man Utd fan area, despite being LFC fans.
When entering one of the stewards saw I was wearing an LFC shirt under my jacket which wasn't zipped up and he advised me to zip up the jacket and not to cheer if Liverpool scored, or we'd be kicked out of the ground.
Women's rights can and do have gatekeeping. If someone wants to claim they're a woman, when they're not, then they may not get access to those rights.
Safeguarding, as you have said yourself, and I agree, is vitally important, particularly in sportsnprisons. And AIUI, and especially after the Scottish debacle, there is a number of wings in prisons that have been set aside for such cases. Sports, meanwhile, are deciding for themselves who can and can't compete in which category.
But that was not my point. My point was that if you believe you are a Liverpool fan then you might object if you needed a sign off from me before you could actually be treated as a Liverpool fan. Let's torture the analogy. You identify as a Liverpool fan, have a Liverpool scarf and are wearing a Liverpool top. And you are going to watch Liverpool vs Everton. But the stewards at the ground don't agree and send you to the away end. Who needs the safeguarding in that instance? The person doing the identifying.
No, the stewards. They need to do their job. That's what they're there for.
Take the example I gave, I went to Old Trafford for Man Utd v LFC, carrying a Manchester United home supporters ticket, but wearing an LFC shirt. The steward raised a concern. I zipped up my jacket and followed his instructions.
Had he said he was refusing to let me in, I would have kicked myself at my stupidity for having my jacket open when I spoke to him so that he saw my shirt. I wouldn't have loudly screamed in his face that I identify as a Manchester United fan (whether I am one or not, and though I'm wearing an LFC shirt).
Self-identification doesn't trump safeguarding, because that defeats the entire purpose of having safeguarding in place.
Those stewards don't get to tell you who you really support. They look at the manifestations of that support and take a view but they don't get to say what the "truth" is.
Those stewards do get to implement safeguarding and gatekeeping. If I had shown my LFC shirt in the ground, I would have been kicked out of the stadium. If I had cheered an LFC goal in the ground, I would have been kicked out of the stadium. "Truth" isn't the question, safeguarding is.
You can come up with whatever 'alternative truths' you like in Trump's terminology, it doesn't matter, safeguarding is done based upon evidence and risk not self-ID and self-truth.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
The modern phenomenon is the attempt to deny that there is any third category such as the one to which you refer, because transwomen are literally women and you’re a bigot if you think otherwise.
The modern phenomenon is diverse, with many views and beliefs, but those saying transwomen are women are not generally denying that there are also non-binary people.
The BBC wanted to publish the name of a man who has a high public profile, referred to as "WFZ", and who has been accused by complainants of committing sexual offences. The man has not been charged. He took the BBC to court and the judge issued a restraining order preventing his public identification.
There is no suggestion that this man works or has ever worked for the BBC.
The following are quotes from the court judgment.
"On 5th June 2023, a journalist in the BBC's News Investigation team, wrote [the man] a 'Right of Reply' letter about an investigation the BBC had conducted into sexual misconduct allegations against him. It said they had spoken to a number of women who had given detailed accounts of behaviour by him including the commission of serious sexual offences. It said they intended to identify him in their reporting of this investigation."
"Further indications from the BBC about the content of the proposed reporting include its confirmation in a solicitor's letter of 7th June that its purpose was the exposure of serious and repeated alleged sexual misconduct against numerous victims, and giving effect to the desire of the victims to have their allegations against the Claimant made public, but that it was not the BBC's intention to publish 'extensive or graphic detail about the allegations'."
"The Claimant is a nationally (and internationally) known name."
"As to content, [the BBC's] evidence is that the proposed reports will state that the BBC has found that at least a quarter of businesses in the sector in which the Claimant works have had employees investigated by the police for serious sexual offences, yet despite this the sector does not have any policies or procedures for employees who are accused of violence against women [...] "
Thank you for the link, which I have briefly scanned. I understand the argument within it, although I am not sure it is sustainable in these days of I MUST KNOW IMMEDIATELY. Yes, it may be relevant to the BBC kerfuffle.
If the BBC reach a position where they could lawfully name "WFZ", I strongly doubt that they will still want to labour the point, given the question mark that has arisen over their handling of allegations made about their own employee, that the sector in which WFZ works has no "policies or procedures" to follow when an employee is accused.
Edit: I forgot to say that WFZ was arrested, although he was not charged.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
One of the missing features at the moment from the public square is the essential liberal idea of 'incommensurability', not only because it is hard to spell. 'Value pluralism' has similar ideas.
Basically not all good or potentially good things are consistent with all other good or potentially good things. (Maximal freedom is not always consistent with maximal safety - ask any parent of small children).
So for example, the value of 'women only' spaces is obvious and always has been. There is also a strong but contested value of 'gender fluidity' which may come into conflict with aspects of 'women only' spaces, either because of true principle on both sides, or because of system manipulation (as alleged sometimes in the prison system).
Discussions that don't recognise this truth tend towards ludicrous forms of authoritarianism and denial of the obvious. And there is no point in thinking everything can be solved, because it is axiomatic that it can't.
Thank you, Kirk.
I share your view, but lacked the ability to put it so clearly and succinctly.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
The modern phenomenon is the attempt to deny that there is any third category such as the one to which you refer, because transwomen are literally women and you’re a bigot if you think otherwise.
The modern phenomenon is diverse, with many views and beliefs, but those saying transwomen are women are not generally denying that there are also non-binary people.
But transwomen aren't women, they're transwomen.
Hijra aren't women either, they're hijra.
Nobody rational objects to trans people being themselves, and having their own safeguarding as appropriate.
What is objectionable is men (or transwomen) identifying as women and getting around women's-only safeguarding as a result.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Yes; it's like trying to remember what your religion is in England between about 1534 and 1661. No idea, can't remember. "My religion is the King's/Queen's religion" would usually do, but not from sometime in the 1640s till 1660.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
Why do I get the horrible feeling that the end of that story is "...and then he was burned at the stake."?
Remarkably he died as he lived, the vicar of Morebath. Duffy's book on his life is one of the recent glories of 16th century English church history.
As part of my current MA I had to do a critical review and chose to do it on The Vicar of Morebath.
PBers share some pretty arcane interests. I had the great good fortune to be supervised by the author, many years ago.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
Bit early to have been on the singing ginger
Yes, I am impressed. Successful day panhandling yesterday?
No was out in the Porsche, you don't get much in your bunnet that way.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
But how does that work in practice in the circumstance that it is perfectly obvious you are watching the telly? Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
That's how I want it to go, anyway.
Before I lived at Anarchy Acres, where I can snipe a member of the Capita Volkssturm hundred of meters before they reach the house, this situation more or less eventuated at my house in Yeovil. I was watching the darts one afternoon when An Inspector Called. It might have been BBC not Capita in those days. I told him to fuck off. Richie ''The Prince of Wales" Burnett did a 150 check out at this point and the crowd went wild so the arsehole could hear. He threatened to come back with a warrant and the cops so I said, "Fine, fucking go on then. Get them." Nothing ever happened. They are softcocks who prey on weak and vulnerable targets.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Although I agree with the thrust of your argument and tend to go for a splitting the difference approach, I don't think it works here. That's because the issue is at least as much about conflict of risks as about conflict of rights and those risks aren't balanced.
I'm not sure that's right, assuming am understanding your argument correctly. To take a couple of contentious situations in this space: trans women in women's prisons - can pose risks to female prisoners, can be at risk themselves in male prisons; gender reassignment surgery or puberty blockers in young people - risk taking irreversible decisions at an age when the person is too young to know for sure or may be going through a phase, versus risk an already distressed person suffers further distress owing to their gender dysphoria, ends up attempting suicide. I just don't think there are easy answers here.
It's not just about whether there are easy answers but whether there are correct answers.
Take 'conversion therapy', for example. If you believe that the dilemma facing trans people is that they are trapped in the wrong body, then any psychological process which has the aim of helping them accept the body they have been given is seen as futile and cruel and ought to be banned. On the other hand, if you reject this concept then an outcome where someone decides they don't need 'reassignment' after all a good outcome, and seeing it as a tragic fate that must be avoided is perverse.
I think there is a sensible middle path here, that recognises that - given that the transition process is difficult and that the person's gender dysphoria could be temporary or related to other mental health issues such as an eating disorder - in some cases the person may be better off figuring out if they can in fact happily live with the gender they were born with, while in other cases transitioning is really in their best interests. I don't think there is a single "correct" answer but there is be a best answer depending on circumstance.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Maybe the problem is thinking of people as members of groups, instead of as individuals.
@Nigelb, @bondegezou . I am aware if the phenomenon of (what we would now call) trans people existing since the year dot, but I was answering @Cookie's question of why now. The movement from a niche subject to a mass phenomenon is I think the trigger that answers Cookie's question, and that trigger was enabled by the surgical and medical techniques I described
I've been reading up on Mary Harrington and Transhumanism (the state of wanting to be better than well), the latter of which includes transgender as a subset alongside many things. She identifies the discovery of the contraceptive pill in 1958 as an important stage in transhumanism, as it allows women to alter their reproductive cycle and change their bodies outside their nominal state as a matter of choice. The implications of that has developed over the last sixty years. I assume the discovery of isolated male/female hormones is a similar thing.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
One of the missing features at the moment from the public square is the essential liberal idea of 'incommensurability', not only because it is hard to spell. 'Value pluralism' has similar ideas.
Basically not all good or potentially good things are consistent with all other good or potentially good things. (Maximal freedom is not always consistent with maximal safety - ask any parent of small children).
So for example, the value of 'women only' spaces is obvious and always has been. There is also a strong but contested value of 'gender fluidity' which may come into conflict with aspects of 'women only' spaces, either because of true principle on both sides, or because of system manipulation (as alleged sometimes in the prison system).
Discussions that don't recognise this truth tend towards ludicrous forms of authoritarianism and denial of the obvious. And there is no point in thinking everything can be solved, because it is axiomatic that it can't.
Thank you, Kirk.
I share your view, but lacked the ability to put it so clearly and succinctly.
How kind. Proper liberal ideas need all hands to the barricades at the moment, holding in their hands the weapons of Mill, Isaiah Berlin, Rawls and Popper.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
One of the missing features at the moment from the public square is the essential liberal idea of 'incommensurability', not only because it is hard to spell. 'Value pluralism' has similar ideas.
Basically not all good or potentially good things are consistent with all other good or potentially good things. (Maximal freedom is not always consistent with maximal safety - ask any parent of small children).
So for example, the value of 'women only' spaces is obvious and always has been. There is also a strong but contested value of 'gender fluidity' which may come into conflict with aspects of 'women only' spaces, either because of true principle on both sides, or because of system manipulation (as alleged sometimes in the prison system).
Discussions that don't recognise this truth tend towards ludicrous forms of authoritarianism and denial of the obvious. And there is no point in thinking everything can be solved, because it is axiomatic that it can't.
Thanks for my learning moment today sir. I had not come across the concept of incommensurability before but your explanation of it makes perfect sense.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Maybe the problem is thinking of people as members of groups, instead of as individuals.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
But how does that work in practice in the circumstance that it is perfectly obvious you are watching the telly? Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
That's how I want it to go, anyway.
Before I lived at Anarchy Acres, where I can snipe a member of the Capita Volkssturm hundred of meters before they reach the house, this situation more or less eventuated at my house in Yeovil. I was watching the darts one afternoon when An Inspector Called. It might have been BBC not Capita in those days. I told him to fuck off. Richie ''The Prince of Wales" Burnett did a 150 check out at this point and the crowd went wild so the arsehole could hear. He threatened to come back with a warrant and the cops so I said, "Fine, fucking go on then. Get them." Nothing ever happened. They are softcocks who prey on weak and vulnerable targets.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
It's not a good analogy because there is no real possibility of a conflict between the stated identity and objective reality as judged by others. At most someone could be lying about being a Liverpool fan, but whether or not it is true is entirely in their own mind (notwithstanding HYUFD-style purity tests about not being a real fan unless you were present for the 1965 FA Cup final).
But to get away for a second from the compelling analogies and interesting philosophizing -
The law here (as it does in many countries) provides a route to change gender which isn't linked to having surgery. Few are arguing for repealing or changing this. So we (the UK) do recognize gender identity as something distinct from biological sex. We recognize transgender people and the validity of their identity.
The questions in practice are therefore not so much of the 'what is a woman?' type but more about the process for transitioning (should it be made less lengthy and intrusive? age limits?) and about which female spaces (if any) should be able to exclude trans women on the grounds of safety and/or fairness.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Although I agree with the thrust of your argument and tend to go for a splitting the difference approach, I don't think it works here. That's because the issue is at least as much about conflict of risks as about conflict of rights and those risks aren't balanced.
I'm not sure that's right, assuming am understanding your argument correctly. To take a couple of contentious situations in this space: trans women in women's prisons - can pose risks to female prisoners, can be at risk themselves in male prisons; gender reassignment surgery or puberty blockers in young people - risk taking irreversible decisions at an age when the person is too young to know for sure or may be going through a phase, versus risk an already distressed person suffers further distress owing to their gender dysphoria, ends up attempting suicide. I just don't think there are easy answers here.
I think your examples illustrate my point. You shouldn't just take a middle ground. You need to understand the risks, mitigate where you can and accept some risks where you can't.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
Although I agree with the thrust of your argument and tend to go for a splitting the difference approach, I don't think it works here. That's because the issue is at least as much about conflict of risks as about conflict of rights and those risks aren't balanced.
I'm not sure that's right, assuming am understanding your argument correctly. To take a couple of contentious situations in this space: trans women in women's prisons - can pose risks to female prisoners, can be at risk themselves in male prisons; gender reassignment surgery or puberty blockers in young people - risk taking irreversible decisions at an age when the person is too young to know for sure or may be going through a phase, versus risk an already distressed person suffers further distress owing to their gender dysphoria, ends up attempting suicide. I just don't think there are easy answers here.
I think your examples illustrate my point. You shouldn't just take a middle ground. You need to understand the risks, mitigate where you can and accept some risks where you can't.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
As I understand the economic model, people running OnlyFans are generally doing so as individuals. There are no Daves in call centres.
It is a nice idea that there would be banks of Scottish people in call centres fielding and relaying requests to OnlyFans participants saying, in their eminently trustable accents "so you want her to do XXX with XXX while XXX"
https://youtu.be/nsK_6VSmlMI Is a useful explainer on the economics of OnlyFans. (NSFS: it’s on YouTube, so there’s no naughty bits on show, but it is about porn.)
Evidently I'm not as conversant with the various online porn channels as some people here. But I assume if someone is being asked for - and providing - "performances", and it is not happening in person, then they are probably performing using a webcam.
If this happened when the person was under 18 (which I'm not sure is being claimed by the mother) then the TV presenter would potentially have been committing a criminal offence. But I suppose he would have been liable enough to be blackmailed even without that.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
But a witch is a cultural creation. Humans have been able to recognise whether other humans were men or women since there were first humans. It has been going on in animals for millions of years. It just seems odd that now is the moment this changes.
I assume it derives from the discovery and commercial availability of hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, et al, and its coincidence with plastic surgery. It is now possible for a person of sex X, given enough money and time, to live everyday lives successfully as a person of sex Y. So it's a coincidence of surgical and medical interventions that were late-20th century inventions, further enabled by the discovery of antibiotics.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
The modern phenomenon is the attempt to deny that there is any third category such as the one to which you refer, because transwomen are literally women and you’re a bigot if you think otherwise.
The modern phenomenon is diverse, with many views and beliefs, but those saying transwomen are women are not generally denying that there are also non-binary people.
But transwomen aren't women, they're transwomen.
Hijra aren't women either, they're hijra.
Nobody rational objects to trans people being themselves, and having their own safeguarding as appropriate.
What is objectionable is men (or transwomen) identifying as women and getting around women's-only safeguarding as a result.
And even more importantly the incitement to violence wherever it comes from is wholly unacceptable and no-one should find it difficult to say so.,
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
One of the missing features at the moment from the public square is the essential liberal idea of 'incommensurability', not only because it is hard to spell. 'Value pluralism' has similar ideas.
Basically not all good or potentially good things are consistent with all other good or potentially good things. (Maximal freedom is not always consistent with maximal safety - ask any parent of small children).
So for example, the value of 'women only' spaces is obvious and always has been. There is also a strong but contested value of 'gender fluidity' which may come into conflict with aspects of 'women only' spaces, either because of true principle on both sides, or because of system manipulation (as alleged sometimes in the prison system).
Discussions that don't recognise this truth tend towards ludicrous forms of authoritarianism and denial of the obvious. And there is no point in thinking everything can be solved, because it is axiomatic that it can't.
Thank you, Kirk.
I share your view, but lacked the ability to put it so clearly and succinctly.
How kind. Proper liberal ideas need all hands to the barricades at the moment, holding in their hands the weapons of Mill, Isaiah Berlin, Rawls and Popper.
Popper annoys me. He never had to deal with an unrepresentative dataset taken nonrandomly in the middle of the night with a deadline. I mean yes unfalsifiability, yes the paradox of intolerance, yes the virtue of theory, but sometimes you just have to jam the bloody thing in with a crowbar, caveat it accordingly, and hope it works. You do the best you can with what you have at the time and hope to God you haven't fucked up. Here endeth the lesson.
I think this analysis pretty well correct. (Except it's probably a bit longer than 2-3 years, which means there is a danger of politicians opting for the worst option, and hoping for the best.)
https://twitter.com/dkaleniuk/status/1678313783612043265 Israel or Korean deal - these are "security guarantees" discussed now by the @POTUS administration for Ukraine. As alternatives to NATO invitation. Ok, if that is the plan, let's discuss what does real Korean or Israel deal mean👇
...There are not that many options for "security guarantees" for Ukraine: US boots on the ground, Ukraine developing nukes, NATO membership, or Minsk3/Budapest2
In the case of Minsk3/Budapest2 Ukraine will turn into a failed state, and Russia will win time to prepare for a new war, which in 2-3 years won't be limited just to Ukraine. Do NATO allies realize that?
Mr. Bondegezou, that entry was American-only, and I'm unlikely to apply for a job I don't want. But if I see a chess OF creator wanting help writing stuff I'll let you know how it goes.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
But how does that work in practice in the circumstance that it is perfectly obvious you are watching the telly? Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
That's how I want it to go, anyway.
They only get convictions if you admit to watching telly, or they see you actually watching Licence requiring content. They can't snoop through windows. You could have Netflix playing on a TV in your front garden in front of them, and they can't do a thing. They only get convictions because people are scared by them.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
But how does that work in practice in the circumstance that it is perfectly obvious you are watching the telly? Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
That's how I want it to go, anyway.
Before I lived at Anarchy Acres, where I can snipe a member of the Capita Volkssturm hundred of meters before they reach the house, this situation more or less eventuated at my house in Yeovil. I was watching the darts one afternoon when An Inspector Called. It might have been BBC not Capita in those days. I told him to fuck off. Richie ''The Prince of Wales" Burnett did a 150 check out at this point and the crowd went wild so the arsehole could hear. He threatened to come back with a warrant and the cops so I said, "Fine, fucking go on then. Get them." Nothing ever happened. They are softcocks who prey on weak and vulnerable targets.
I'm amazed that people have been called on by inspectors. I haven't had a TV licence for years, and have never been called on. Admittedly I don't throw the letters in the bin, but make the declaration that I don't need one (which I don't). They are so incompetent that sometimes they need to be told two or three times, but that has been the end of it.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
As I understand the economic model, people running OnlyFans are generally doing so as individuals. There are no Daves in call centres.
It is a nice idea that there would be banks of Scottish people in call centres fielding and relaying requests to OnlyFans participants saying, in their eminently trustable accents "so you want her to do XXX with XXX while XXX"
https://youtu.be/nsK_6VSmlMI Is a useful explainer on the economics of OnlyFans. (NSFS: it’s on YouTube, so there’s no naughty bits on show, but it is about porn.)
Evidently I'm not as conversant with the various online porn channels as some people here. But I assume if someone is being asked for - and providing - "performances", and it is not happening in person, then they are probably performing using a webcam.
If this happened when the person was under 18 (which I'm not sure is being claimed by the mother) then the TV presenter would potentially have been committing a criminal offence. But I suppose he would have been liable enough to be blackmailed even without that.
It is that uncertainty around what happened at 17 and what developed later that (imo) is why the Sun and BBC are so coy. They can't be sure (so far) whether the star is a criminal or just plain stupid.
Even the mum's complaints, as reported, were not about their relationship per se but that the payments had allowed her son to develop a drugs habit. £35,000 over four years is not a lot of money but drugs are cheap.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
As I understand the economic model, people running OnlyFans are generally doing so as individuals. There are no Daves in call centres.
It is a nice idea that there would be banks of Scottish people in call centres fielding and relaying requests to OnlyFans participants saying, in their eminently trustable accents "so you want her to do XXX with XXX while XXX"
https://youtu.be/nsK_6VSmlMI Is a useful explainer on the economics of OnlyFans. (NSFS: it’s on YouTube, so there’s no naughty bits on show, but it is about porn.)
Evidently I'm not as conversant with the various online porn channels as some people here. But I assume if someone is being asked for - and providing - "performances", and it is not happening in person, then they are probably performing using a webcam.
If this happened when the person was under 18 (which I'm not sure is being claimed by the mother) then the TV presenter would potentially have been committing a criminal offence. But I suppose he would have been liable enough to be blackmailed even without that.
It is that uncertainty around what happened at 17 and what developed later that (imo) is why the Sun and BBC are so coy. They can't be sure (so far) whether the star is a criminal or just plain stupid.
In fact they can't be sure about whether a single word of it is true.
If anyone thinks a word of it is true because it was published by the Sun, please visit BridgesAreUs.com.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
But how does that work in practice in the circumstance that it is perfectly obvious you are watching the telly? Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
That's how I want it to go, anyway.
Before I lived at Anarchy Acres, where I can snipe a member of the Capita Volkssturm hundred of meters before they reach the house, this situation more or less eventuated at my house in Yeovil. I was watching the darts one afternoon when An Inspector Called. It might have been BBC not Capita in those days. I told him to fuck off. Richie ''The Prince of Wales" Burnett did a 150 check out at this point and the crowd went wild so the arsehole could hear. He threatened to come back with a warrant and the cops so I said, "Fine, fucking go on then. Get them." Nothing ever happened. They are softcocks who prey on weak and vulnerable targets.
I'm amazed that people have been called on by inspectors. I haven't had a TV licence for years, and have never been called on. Admittedly I don't throw the letters in the bin, but make the declaration that I don't need one (which I don't). They are so incompetent that sometimes they need to be told two or three times, but that has been the end of it.
Making a declaration only stops the letters for a short while before they come back.
I've got a good collection of about 60 letters in my harassment file (I ignored them all), but for some reason they've stopped now.
I did have a visit at which I told them to sod off, and also a suspicious looking person asking if I have Sky TV who was intercepted in the driveway. I'm guessing it was an "inspector" going off piste and trying a bit of entrapment.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
“Must a name mean something?” Alice asks Humpty Dumpty, only to get this answer: “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Humpty Dumpty might have added "no debate".
But you can see that this approach leads to chaos. Babel.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
????
I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make; and I have not heard anything about this Thai case.
I believe he is referring to Susie Green, ex-CEO of Mermaids. Her son was, according to what she has said in public in a TED talk, a little boy who liked playing with girls' toys and wearing girl's clothes. She thought he was probably gay but her husband was against this. They split up. She got him puberty blockers and then when he was 16 took him to Thailand for reassignment surgery. Thailand had at that time passed a law banning such surgery but there was a 3 month delay between the law being passed and it coming into force and she snuck in during that time. She said in her TED talk that because of the puberty blockers the penis had not developed and so there was very little material for the surgeons to work with when they try to invert the penis to create a pretend vagina.
She gave evidence in the Mermaids/LGB Alliance case that Mermaids did not give medical advice but this is at odds with the evidence coming from the Tavistock that she referred children to the Tavistock contrary to the advice of their GPs. She has no medical qualifications.
She suddenly left Mermaids a year ago following concerns raised by the Charity Commission about its governance, particularly in relation to the appointment of a trustee, Jacob Breslow, who has written approvingly of paedophilia and in relation to the provision of breastbinders to young girls and various other issues. Mermaids is currently facing a statutory investigation by the Charity Commission.
She has since reappeared working with Gender GP, an organisation run by Dr Helen Webberley, who describes herself as self-taught on trans medicine. She has been fined in Wales for not registering her clinic and was found guilty of serious misconduct by the GMC but recently won her appeal and can now practise again. Her husband with whom she founded the clinic has been struck off.
I believe the clinic moved to Spain but don't know if it is still there or in the U.K. it has been criticised for giving puberty blockers to very young children but I don't know if the recent NHS guidance on this will affect what it can do.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
One of the missing features at the moment from the public square is the essential liberal idea of 'incommensurability', not only because it is hard to spell. 'Value pluralism' has similar ideas.
Basically not all good or potentially good things are consistent with all other good or potentially good things. (Maximal freedom is not always consistent with maximal safety - ask any parent of small children).
So for example, the value of 'women only' spaces is obvious and always has been. There is also a strong but contested value of 'gender fluidity' which may come into conflict with aspects of 'women only' spaces, either because of true principle on both sides, or because of system manipulation (as alleged sometimes in the prison system).
Discussions that don't recognise this truth tend towards ludicrous forms of authoritarianism and denial of the obvious. And there is no point in thinking everything can be solved, because it is axiomatic that it can't.
More perhaps that we can come up with a messy, sometime inconsistent solution to the most difficult problems. This doesn’t please everyone, but it might actually work (sort of).
Rather than trying to write absolute commandments in stone.
I think this analysis pretty well correct. (Except it's probably a bit longer than 2-3 years, which means there is a danger of politicians opting for the worst option, and hoping for the best.)
https://twitter.com/dkaleniuk/status/1678313783612043265 Israel or Korean deal - these are "security guarantees" discussed now by the @POTUS administration for Ukraine. As alternatives to NATO invitation. Ok, if that is the plan, let's discuss what does real Korean or Israel deal mean👇
...There are not that many options for "security guarantees" for Ukraine: US boots on the ground, Ukraine developing nukes, NATO membership, or Minsk3/Budapest2
In the case of Minsk3/Budapest2 Ukraine will turn into a failed state, and Russia will win time to prepare for a new war, which in 2-3 years won't be limited just to Ukraine. Do NATO allies realize that?
In the case of Minsk3 - what exactly will stop Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons? They have enough fissile material on their territory, right now. A two point implosion system is a university engineering project.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Enough with this nonsense. A woman is not a definition. She is a reality. Women do not exist because they are defined, let alone by men. We exist. We are the sex which is capable of producing eggs. We are made in the womb and given life to by women. Men are the sex which is capable of producing sperm.
What we wear, our hairstyles, make up, jobs, voices, opinions etc are irrelevant. There are as many different ways of being a woman as there are women on the planet. The one thing we all have in common is our sex. We cannot turn into men and men cannot turn into us no matter how much cosmetic or surgical changes anyone makes. It does no-one any good to pretend otherwise. Deceiving people is unkind.
Those who seek to pretend that sex is irrelevant to how women have and are being treated in every country in the world now and ever since human existence started - that it is a matter of "definition" - are, frankly, talking through their arse.
I am so so sick of hearing men say that my existence as a woman is not a reality but something that can be redefined just like that or be put on like a dress or shoes. It is utterly contemptuous of women and the reality of our lives.
People with gender dysphoria deserve all the love and respect and help they need to live their lives. Those activists who think that attacking women, telling them who they must have sex with regardless of their own wishes helps trans people are utterly deluded and doing the cause of trans people no good at all.
Women have - and are entitled to have - boundaries. They can say No means No and have this respected. Far too many men find both these concepts hard to grasp let alone respect.
Women are not obliged to participate in, believe or validate men's feelings, delusions, or wishes, no matter how fervently held.
Far too many men find this concept hard to understand or respect.
re survives very much on buying scraps from the BBC.
People all over the world access the BBC via VPNs. Almost no one does that for American broadcast news or Australian TV.
Where's your evidence for that?
It strikes me as the kind of spurious Envy of the World rubbish the NHS spouts, though nobody ever imitates it. But if you have statistics I'm willing to be convinced.
So again,, no. Show me a private sector doing it better and I'll listen.
If it is so wonderful then it will survive on its own as people will be willing to pay for it. If not, then it clearly isn't wonderful after all.
As it happens, it wasn't the news I was particularly thinking of when I was thinking we can manage without the BBC - more its soap operas, comedies and so on, all of which the private sector produces in abundance and without extorting money from penniless grannies and students to pay for them.
But there are plenty of alternative producers of news too.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Enough with this nonsense. A woman is not a definition. She is a reality. Women do not exist because they are defined, let alone by men. We exist. We are the sex which is capable of producing eggs. We are made in the womb and given life to by women. Men are the sex which is capable of producing sperm.
What we wear, our hairstyles, make up, jobs, voices, opinions etc are irrelevant. There are as many different ways of being a woman as there are women on the planet. The one thing we all have in common is our sex. We cannot turn into men and men cannot turn into us no matter how much cosmetic or surgical changes anyone makes. It does no-one any good to pretend otherwise. Deceiving people is unkind.
Those who seek to pretend that sex is irrelevant to how women have and are being treated in every country in the world now and ever since human existence started - that it is a matter of "definition" - are, frankly, talking through their arse.
I am so so sick of hearing men say that my existence as a woman is not a reality but something that can be redefined just like that or be put on like a dress or shoes. It is utterly contemptuous of women and the reality of our lives.
People with gender dysphoria deserve all the love and respect and help they need to live their lives. Those activists who think that attacking women, telling them who they must have sex with regardless of their own wishes helps trans people are utterly deluded and doing the cause of trans people no good at all.
Women have - and are entitled to have - boundaries. They can say No means No and have this respected. Far too many men find both these concepts hard to grasp let alone respect.
Women are not obliged to participate in, believe or validate men's feelings, delusions, or wishes, no matter how fervently held.
Far too many men find this concept hard to understand or respect.
Pity I can only like this once, great post. @Cyclefree
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Enough with this nonsense. A woman is not a definition. She is a reality. Women do not exist because they are defined, let alone by men. We exist. We are the sex which is capable of producing eggs. We are made in the womb and given life to by women. Men are the sex which is capable of producing sperm.
What we wear, our hairstyles, make up, jobs, voices, opinions etc are irrelevant. There are as many different ways of being a woman as there are women on the planet. The one thing we all have in common is our sex. We cannot turn into men and men cannot turn into us no matter how much cosmetic or surgical changes anyone makes. It does no-one any good to pretend otherwise. Deceiving people is unkind.
Those who seek to pretend that sex is irrelevant to how women have and are being treated in every country in the world now and ever since human existence started - that it is a matter of "definition" - are, frankly, talking through their arse.
I am so so sick of hearing men say that my existence as a woman is not a reality but something that can be redefined just like that or be put on like a dress or shoes. It is utterly contemptuous of women and the reality of our lives.
People with gender dysphoria deserve all the love and respect and help they need to live their lives. Those activists who think that attacking women, telling them who they must have sex with regardless of their own wishes helps trans people are utterly deluded and doing the cause of trans people no good at all.
Women have - and are entitled to have - boundaries. They can say No means No and have this respected. Far too many men find both these concepts hard to grasp let alone respect.
Women are not obliged to participate in, believe or validate men's feelings, delusions, or wishes, no matter how fervently held.
Far too many men find this concept hard to understand or respect.
Unfortunately, scientifically, there is a clear grey area in terms of intersex individuals, who immediately muddy the waters on such a definition of a woman or, indeed, a man. How to treat these people is an ongoing question that cannot readily be dismissed even if we all think we know, prima facie, what a man or woman is.
The next question is then, how broadly do you define who can count as intersex? - the entry below lists many types.
In setting the breadth of a definition of intersex, the key question is how far into the psychological sphere do you go to include dysphoria? This is the new departure.
We had a long below the line discussion on ADHD, Autism and Asperger's labels last week. The exact biological underpinnings of all these things remain poorly understood (is it serotonin in the frontal cortex, is it the working memory modules etc.), not all the classification and identification is high quality, yet there is definitely some functional lifelong reality underpinning these things. Homosexuality is equally psychological in as much as it is a function of the mind (and endocrine system). You could equally well argue all these as not genuine things, and people do.
What we need here really is quality and rigour. Psychology sits at an interface between physical and social science with our current knowledge and I don't know the right answer in respect of gender dysphoria or, indeed, all the other things above. And from that rigourous underpinning, we will be on more solid ground building out a society that accommodates these people in the most appropriate ways.
What I am confident of is that, whatever mistakes we end up making along the road on this, mistakes we should definitely seek to avoid, but in some respects may not, the next generation or two will end up with a far better handle on this than we have, and we will get to a place where trans people come to far less harm than they do now without compromise on the aggregate safety of womankind as a whole. It is a road we should seek to travel.
As I was part of the "below the line discussion on ADHD, Autism and Asperger's labels last week" that @Pro_Rata alludes to, forgive me for jumping in.
As tech advances and society becomes richer, we are seeing an upswing in diseases/disorders which cannot be easily diagnosed but are presumed to have some sort of origin in the brain. @Cyclefree speaks of gender dysphoria, @Pro_Rata speaks of ADHD/Autism/Aspergers, I would also lump in dyslexia and dyscalculia, and doubtless there will be others. Placing these disorders within the medical paradigm causes problems, as they are difficult to analyse with normal medical rigor. Consider: how do you detect it, what is the cause, how do you cure it, does the person want to be cured, how do you measure the difference between ill and well, what is the success/failure rate, how you distinguish between practitioners that are doing well, making mistakes, behaving fraudulently, behaving malevolently, and so on. These disorders don't really fit.
Please note that I'm not saying these conditions don't exist, I am saying we need to describe and approach it differently.
Comments
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Though something tells me if I started selling myself as being Liverpool Football Club and trying to make money off the fact that I am LFC, then I would get letters from lawyers pretty damned quickly.
They paid £8bn for it in 2006 - to the German RWE, which bought it for a bit over half of that.
Between 2006 and 2017, when they sold the last of their equity stake (probably at a profit), company debt rose from £3.2bn to £10.5bn.
Dividends on the equity averaged £280m per year during their ownership.
This is for what ought to be a boring utility, with a turnover of a bit over £2bn per annum.
You'd also have to know how much of the debt was taken out by funds under Macquarie's control, and track their shareholdings during that period.
It would need someone to spend quite some time crunching the numbers (that ought to be Ofwat's purpose, but a brief glance at their annual reports on the industry suggests to me that they take a bit too much on trust).
Let me know if you have the time.
[I accept this is just how football supporters talk, of course, and it isn't unique to football. But I'm always slightly amused by it.]
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
But here also look at the machinations when Man U was sold.
Plus the singing "We are...."
So actually I might have to go back to @Barty to say that he could very well be LFC.
Anyway, this debate is (i) trans and (ii) way off into tortuous analogies, so I'll withdraw and let you and Topping carry on
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
My other point was that it is often useful (but not definitive) to substitute "homosexual" for "trans person" to be able to see some of the issue in an historical, cultural context.
There might be rights associated with being a Liverpool member, but that does have gatekeeping.
I once signed up to be a Manchester United member. Man Utd vs LFC was happening in the League Cup on my brothers birthday and no away fan tickets were available, but home fan tickets were available for Man Utd members (even those with no history). We signed up and bought tickets to give to him for his birthday and we went to the match and sat in the Man Utd fan area, despite being LFC fans.
When entering one of the stewards saw I was wearing an LFC shirt under my jacket which wasn't zipped up and he advised me to zip up the jacket and not to cheer if Liverpool scored, or we'd be kicked out of the ground.
Women's rights can and do have gatekeeping. If someone wants to claim they're a woman, when they're not, then they may not get access to those rights.
But that was not my point. My point was that if you believe you are a Liverpool fan then you might object if you needed a sign off from me before you could actually be treated as a Liverpool fan. Let's torture the analogy. You identify as a Liverpool fan, have a Liverpool scarf and are wearing a Liverpool top. And you are going to watch Liverpool vs Everton. But the stewards at the ground don't agree and send you to the away end. Who needs the safeguarding in that instance? The person doing the identifying.
I just don't think there are easy answers here.
This phenomenon has thrown into sharp relief how we treat men and women, and how much of that is due to the inward self and how much due to outward appearance. If you have a naked person and cannot tell without specialist tools whether that person is male or female, then what to do? Many say that this state is impossible and that they can always tell, but it appears that the gap between the two has narrowed over the past decades.
I do not know how this will be resolved, but I do feel confident in saying we are handling it badly, at least in the present moment.
This is the public version (as it is officially called) of the High Court judgment issued on 29 June:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/1618.html
The BBC wanted to publish the name of a man who has a high public profile, referred to as "WFZ", and who has been accused by complainants of committing sexual offences. The man has not been charged. He took the BBC to court and the judge issued a restraining order preventing his public identification.
There is no suggestion that this man works or has ever worked for the BBC.
The following are quotes from the court judgment.
"On 5th June 2023, a journalist in the BBC's News Investigation team, wrote [the man] a 'Right of Reply' letter about an investigation the BBC had conducted into sexual misconduct allegations against him. It said they had spoken to a number of women who had given detailed accounts of behaviour by him including the commission of serious sexual offences. It said they intended to identify him in their reporting of this investigation."
"Further indications from the BBC about the content of the proposed reporting include its confirmation in a solicitor's letter of 7th June that its purpose was the exposure of serious and repeated alleged sexual misconduct against numerous victims, and giving effect to the desire of the victims to have their allegations against the Claimant made public, but that it was not the BBC's intention to publish 'extensive or graphic detail about the allegations'."
"The Claimant is a nationally (and internationally) known name."
"As to content, [the BBC's] evidence is that the proposed reports will state that the BBC has found that at least a quarter of businesses in the sector in which the Claimant works have had employees investigated by the police for serious sexual offences, yet despite this the sector does not have any policies or procedures for employees who are accused of violence against women [...] "
In particular for me at least it would include womens prisons, womens refuges, open womens changing rooms. All of these I would not be concerned with post op. In all those cases the answer is to provide separate space for the self id'ed, individual cubicles for changing in, a separate wing for a prison where they are segregated from the general population, separate refuges for the trans. None of these things would prevent them self id'ing and living as a woman.
I think some clubs in Italy genuinely are owned by the fans in some respect. And I think (?) Bournemouth in this country is.
Take the example I gave, I went to Old Trafford for Man Utd v LFC, carrying a Manchester United home supporters ticket, but wearing an LFC shirt. The steward raised a concern. I zipped up my jacket and followed his instructions.
Had he said he was refusing to let me in, I would have kicked myself at my stupidity for having my jacket open when I spoke to him so that he saw my shirt. I wouldn't have loudly screamed in his face that I identify as a Manchester United fan (whether I am one or not, and though I'm wearing an LFC shirt).
Self-identification doesn't trump safeguarding, because that defeats the entire purpose of having safeguarding in place.
Interesting. There are many OnlyFans creators. (Not all are porn: I understand there’s a big chess community on OF.) It seems likely that practice varies. It would help our mutual understanding if the next time you see a listing like that, you then apply and find out what it’s like. Until that time, I would suggest that someone recruited off Craigslist is a different scale of outsourcing to a call centre. However, I have no experience of such things. (Employing call centres, that is. I have rung call centres.)
Presumably everyone just gets ChatGPT to do the answers for them now…
the end.
Take 'conversion therapy', for example. If you believe that the dilemma facing trans people is that they are trapped in the wrong body, then any psychological process which has the aim of helping them accept the body they have been given is seen as futile and cruel and ought to be banned. On the other hand, if you reject this concept then an outcome where someone decides they don't need 'reassignment' after all a good outcome, and seeing it as a tragic fate that must be avoided is perverse.
To give but one example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
Basically not all good or potentially good things are consistent with all other good or potentially good things. (Maximal freedom is not always consistent with maximal safety - ask any parent of small children).
So for example, the value of 'women only' spaces is obvious and always has been. There is also a strong but contested value of 'gender fluidity' which may come into conflict with aspects of 'women only' spaces, either because of true principle on both sides, or because of system manipulation (as alleged sometimes in the prison system).
Discussions that don't recognise this truth tend towards ludicrous forms of authoritarianism and denial of the obvious. And there is no point in thinking everything can be solved, because it is axiomatic that it can't.
You can come up with whatever 'alternative truths' you like in Trump's terminology, it doesn't matter, safeguarding is done based upon evidence and risk not self-ID and self-truth.
Edit: I forgot to say that WFZ was arrested, although he was not charged.
I share your view, but lacked the ability to put it so clearly and succinctly.
Hijra aren't women either, they're hijra.
Nobody rational objects to trans people being themselves, and having their own safeguarding as appropriate.
What is objectionable is men (or transwomen) identifying as women and getting around women's-only safeguarding as a result.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-66152992
I've been reading up on Mary Harrington and Transhumanism (the state of wanting to be better than well), the latter of which includes transgender as a subset alongside many things. She identifies the discovery of the contraceptive pill in 1958 as an important stage in transhumanism, as it allows women to alter their reproductive cycle and change their bodies outside their nominal state as a matter of choice. The implications of that has developed over the last sixty years. I assume the discovery of isolated male/female hormones is a similar thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66151983
Another good day on PB for me.
T20, D20, bullseye = true neutral
bullseye, bullseye, bullseye = chaotic evil
The law here (as it does in many countries) provides a route to change gender which isn't linked to having surgery. Few are arguing for repealing or changing this. So we (the UK) do recognize gender identity as something distinct from biological sex. We recognize transgender people and the validity of their identity.
The questions in practice are therefore not so much of the 'what is a woman?' type but more about the process for transitioning (should it be made less lengthy and intrusive? age limits?) and about which female spaces (if any) should be able to exclude trans women on the grounds of safety and/or fairness.
If this happened when the person was under 18 (which I'm not sure is being claimed by the mother) then the TV presenter would potentially have been committing a criminal offence. But I suppose he would have been liable enough to be blackmailed even without that.
https://twitter.com/bnr/status/1678319148206522369
(Except it's probably a bit longer than 2-3 years, which means there is a danger of politicians opting for the worst option, and hoping for the best.)
https://twitter.com/dkaleniuk/status/1678313783612043265
Israel or Korean deal - these are "security guarantees" discussed now by the
@POTUS
administration for Ukraine. As alternatives to NATO invitation. Ok, if that is the plan, let's discuss what does real Korean or Israel deal mean👇
...There are not that many options for "security guarantees" for Ukraine: US boots on the ground, Ukraine developing nukes, NATO membership, or Minsk3/Budapest2
In the case of Minsk3/Budapest2 Ukraine will turn into a failed state, and Russia will win time to prepare for a new war, which in 2-3 years won't be limited just to Ukraine. Do NATO allies realize that?
And perhaps even a needed break from your own disagreements.
(I find it grimly amusing.)
Even the mum's complaints, as reported, were not about their relationship per se but that the payments had allowed her son to develop a drugs habit. £35,000 over four years is not a lot of money but drugs are cheap.
If anyone thinks a word of it is true because it was published by the Sun, please visit BridgesAreUs.com.
I've got a good collection of about 60 letters in my harassment file (I ignored them all), but for some reason they've stopped now.
I did have a visit at which I told them to sod off, and also a suspicious looking person asking if I have Sky TV who was intercepted in the driveway. I'm guessing it was an "inspector" going off piste and trying a bit of entrapment.
The whole business is a disgrace.
Humpty Dumpty might have added "no debate".
But you can see that this approach leads to chaos. Babel.
She gave evidence in the Mermaids/LGB Alliance case that Mermaids did not give medical advice but this is at odds with the evidence coming from the Tavistock that she referred children to the Tavistock contrary to the advice of their GPs. She has no medical qualifications.
She suddenly left Mermaids a year ago following concerns raised by the Charity Commission about its governance, particularly in relation to the appointment of a trustee, Jacob Breslow, who has written approvingly of paedophilia and in relation to the provision of breastbinders to young girls and various other issues. Mermaids is currently facing a statutory investigation by the Charity Commission.
She has since reappeared working with Gender GP, an organisation run by Dr Helen Webberley, who describes herself as self-taught on trans medicine. She has been fined in Wales for not registering her clinic and was found guilty of serious misconduct by the GMC but recently won her appeal and can now practise again. Her husband with whom she founded the clinic has been struck off.
I believe the clinic moved to Spain but don't know if it is still there or in the U.K. it has been criticised for giving puberty blockers to very young children but I don't know if the recent NHS guidance on this will affect what it can do.
Rather than trying to write absolute commandments in stone.
We exist. We are the sex which is capable of producing eggs. We are made in the womb and given life to by women. Men are the sex which is capable of producing sperm.
What we wear, our hairstyles, make up, jobs, voices, opinions etc are irrelevant. There are as many different ways of being a woman as there are women on the planet. The one thing we all have in common is our sex. We cannot turn into men and men cannot turn into us no matter how much cosmetic or surgical changes anyone makes. It does no-one any good to pretend otherwise. Deceiving people is unkind.
Those who seek to pretend that sex is irrelevant to how women have and are being treated in every country in the world now and ever since human existence started - that it is a matter of "definition" - are, frankly, talking through their arse.
I am so so sick of hearing men say that my existence as a woman is not a reality but something that can be redefined just like that or be put on like a dress or shoes. It is utterly contemptuous of women and the reality of our lives.
People with gender dysphoria deserve all the love and respect and help they need to live their lives. Those activists who think that attacking women, telling them who they must have sex with regardless of their own wishes helps trans people are utterly deluded and doing the cause of trans people no good at all.
Women have - and are entitled to have - boundaries. They can say No means No and have this respected. Far too many men find both these concepts hard to grasp let alone respect.
Women are not obliged to participate in, believe or validate men's feelings, delusions, or wishes, no matter how fervently held.
Far too many men find this concept hard to understand or respect.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366544234/Post-Office-inquiry-must-examine-rule-on-IT-evidence-if-miscarriages-of-justice-are-to-be-avoided
It strikes me as the kind of spurious Envy of the World rubbish the NHS spouts, though nobody ever imitates it. But if you have statistics I'm willing to be convinced. If it is so wonderful then it will survive on its own as people will be willing to pay for it. If not, then it clearly isn't wonderful after all.
As it happens, it wasn't the news I was particularly thinking of when I was thinking we can manage without the BBC - more its soap operas, comedies and so on, all of which the private sector produces in abundance and without extorting money from penniless grannies and students to pay for them.
But there are plenty of alternative producers of news too.
The next question is then, how broadly do you define who can count as intersex? - the entry below lists many types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex?wprov=sfla1
In setting the breadth of a definition of intersex, the key question is how far into the psychological sphere do you go to include dysphoria? This is the new departure.
We had a long below the line discussion on ADHD, Autism and Asperger's labels last week. The exact biological underpinnings of all these things remain poorly understood (is it serotonin in the frontal cortex, is it the working memory modules etc.), not all the classification and identification is high quality, yet there is definitely some functional lifelong reality underpinning these things. Homosexuality is equally psychological in as much as it is a function of the mind (and endocrine system). You could equally well argue all these as not genuine things, and people do.
What we need here really is quality and rigour. Psychology sits at an interface between physical and social science with our current knowledge and I don't know the right answer in respect of gender dysphoria or, indeed, all the other things above. And from that rigourous underpinning, we will be on more solid ground building out a society that accommodates these people in the most appropriate ways.
What I am confident of is that, whatever mistakes we end up making along the road on this, mistakes we should definitely seek to avoid, but in some respects may not, the next generation or two will end up with a far better handle on this than we have, and we will get to a place where trans people come to far less harm than they do now without compromise on the aggregate safety of womankind as a whole. It is a road we should seek to travel.
As I was part of the "below the line discussion on ADHD, Autism and Asperger's labels last week" that @Pro_Rata alludes to, forgive me for jumping in.
As tech advances and society becomes richer, we are seeing an upswing in diseases/disorders which cannot be easily diagnosed but are presumed to have some sort of origin in the brain. @Cyclefree speaks of gender dysphoria, @Pro_Rata speaks of ADHD/Autism/Aspergers, I would also lump in dyslexia and dyscalculia, and doubtless there will be others. Placing these disorders within the medical paradigm causes problems, as they are difficult to analyse with normal medical rigor. Consider: how do you detect it, what is the cause, how do you cure it, does the person want to be cured, how do you measure the difference between ill and well, what is the success/failure rate, how you distinguish between practitioners that are doing well, making mistakes, behaving fraudulently, behaving malevolently, and so on. These disorders don't really fit.
Please note that I'm not saying these conditions don't exist, I am saying we need to describe and approach it differently.