Bingo. But there is a particular aspect to it which makes it even more unsettling
Nicht Google!
Something to do with the marks in the roughcast?
Yes
The Germans - in their genius for evil, got the Jewish labourers who built the Jewish ghetto wall, and told them to use.. Jewish gravestones
According to Google it was slightly worse than that (to my mind anyway), they got the Jewish labourers to build the wall in the form of gravestones just for the bantz.
Yes that’s what I mean. They also used Jewish gravestones as paving for the roads into the local death camps for the same reason. For the lolz
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
Isn't he continuing to try and influence UK politics? That makes him as much of a politician as any political journo in the UK.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
So you are effctively choosing to ignore what is said in the released documents - which is quite damning for Coutts - in favour of an assumption about what might be said in unrealeased documents. That certainly sounds like skewed analysis to me.
Not really. I'm making no assumptions. I'm making an accusation. I'm accusing you of making assumptions (or conclusions) based on incomplete evidence.
Nope, you are making assumpitions that whatever else Coutts holds about him will change the narrative and using that to discredit the argument that they have acted out of order.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attacked by some men of arab descent, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attackrd, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
The BBC is the official news “gatekeeper” that the slow learner, @OnlyLivingBoy, wants to rely on in future when AI threatens the objectivity and truth of all news
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
You misunderstand the point I was making, both specific and general. The specific point was that Hadley Freeman presented a belief on souls and angels as self-evidently wrong, whereas most people in the world believe in one or both. The general point was that the Trans-TERF war bears a resemblance to a religious war, and we don't recognise this because PB is irreligious. I have no idea whether a soul has a specific gender or race and must hand that over to the philosopers.
As for whether sex is bimodal, if all people were either male or female then the argument against bimodality may carry (although I'd maintain on a technicality that it is a special case of it), but the non-zero existence and incidence of intersex people, no matter how small in number, makes it bimodal. Please don't make me draw a curve.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
Isn't he continuing to try and influence UK politics? That makes him as much of a politician as any political journo in the UK.
Trying to influence politics does not make you a politician. A political journo is a journo.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
Christ on a bike. Have you ever actually met any transwomen? What attracts them and excites them is board games, open source software, and kayaking, pretty much.
Joyce was talking about autogynephiles who are prominent in some Trans Rights groups. I fear genuine trans people have been very badly served by some of their so called allies.
What is the evidence for the existence of "autogynephiles"?
I saw Moeen's role at No.3 described as a 'dayhawk' the other day. This makes no sense to me, but is fun anyway. Basically he volunteered to bat at 3 because somebody had to do it. Full marks to him.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster.
The phrase "politically exposed person" has also been abused to imply that he was compromised when it just refers to people in positions of authority:
- heads of state, heads of government, ministers, and deputy or assistant ministers - members of parliament (MPs) - members of courts of auditors or of the boards of central banks - ambassadors, chargés d’affaires and high-ranking officers in the armed forces - members of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of state-owned enterprises - members of supreme courts, constitutional courts or other high-level judicial bodies whose decisions are not generally subject to further appeal, except in exceptional circumstances
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attackrd, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
The BBC is the official news “gatekeeper” that the slow learner, @OnlyLivingBoy, wants to rely on in future when AI threatens the objectivity and truth of all news
Yes. The BBC. And the Guardian
Not only is the Beeb the offical news gatekeeper it is now the arbiter of what is true and what isn't through its BBC Verfiy initiative.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attackrd, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
The BBC is the official news “gatekeeper” that the slow learner, @OnlyLivingBoy, wants to rely on in future when AI threatens the objectivity and truth of all news
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
Christ on a bike. Have you ever actually met any transwomen? What attracts them and excites them is board games, open source software, and kayaking, pretty much.
Joyce was talking about autogynephiles who are prominent in some Trans Rights groups. I fear genuine trans people have been very badly served by some of their so called allies.
What is the evidence for the existence of "autogynephiles"?
The stacks of peer reviewed material by real psychologists in real journals, which a google search will throw up for you.
If your question is valid, what is the evidence for the existence of "transsexuals"?
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster.
The phrase "politically exposed person" has also been abused to imply that he was compromised when it just refers to people in positions of authority:
- heads of state, heads of government, ministers, and deputy or assistant ministers - members of parliament (MPs) - members of courts of auditors or of the boards of central banks - ambassadors, chargés d’affaires and high-ranking officers in the armed forces - members of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of state-owned enterprises - members of supreme courts, constitutional courts or other high-level judicial bodies whose decisions are not generally subject to further appeal, except in exceptional circumstances
I have little time for Farage or say Corbyn, but just as I said attacks on of them was absolutely wrong, the same kind of reasoning could be used to stop Crobynistas types from getting bank accounts as Farage...and would equally be wrong.
I wonder what the reaction from some would be if the eco-fascists or Steve Bray were denied ban accounts under the same rules? And dossiers were been collected about all their activities?
I remember when people used to say about twitter banning people, well they are a private company they can do what they want...then they got a new owner, who did what he wanted, and then the same people said it was an outrage....
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attackrd, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
The BBC is the official news “gatekeeper” that the slow learner, @OnlyLivingBoy, wants to rely on in future when AI threatens the objectivity and truth of all news
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
Isn't he continuing to try and influence UK politics? That makes him as much of a politician as any political journo in the UK.
Trying to influence politics does not make you a politician. A political journo is a journo.
Bit like claiming an amateur birdwatcher isn't a zoologist. Okay, there's some sense on both sides of the argument. I still think that a political journo is a politically active person in a sense that being a mere voter doesn't make one. Vide the Spectator and its influence on the Johnson administration decision-making.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
You misunderstand the point I was making, both specific and general. The specific point was that Hadley Freeman presented a belief on souls and angels as self-evidently wrong, whereas most people in the world believe in one or both. The general point was that the Trans-TERF war bears a resemblance to a religious war, and we don't recognise this because PB is irreligious. I have no idea whether a soul has a specific gender or race and must hand that over to the philosopers.
As for whether sex is bimodal, if all people were either male or female then the argument against bimodality may carry (although I'd maintain on a technicality that it is a special case of it), but the non-zero existence and incidence of intersex people, no matter how small in number, makes it bimodal. Please don't make me draw a curve.
Don't fall for it as well. The miniscule percentage who are intersex, as the article says, had development aberrations. More importantly, the oft-deployed intersex gambit has nothing to do with gender dysphoria. Those with dysphoria are not intersex. Theirs is purely a psychological state.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
Christ on a bike. Have you ever actually met any transwomen? What attracts them and excites them is board games, open source software, and kayaking, pretty much.
Joyce was talking about autogynephiles who are prominent in some Trans Rights groups. I fear genuine trans people have been very badly served by some of their so called allies.
What is the evidence for the existence of "autogynephiles"?
Abstract
Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women's clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence. Some theorists and clinicians reject the transsexual typology and theory of motivation derived from autogynephilia; their objections suggest a need for additional research. The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called 'erotic target identity inversions', in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right?I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Bullshit. Citation please.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attacked by some men of arab descent, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
Wasn’t that because they went by what the attackers claimed was said.
Rather than getting an independent Yiddish translator to translate the actual audio?
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
So you are effctively choosing to ignore what is said in the released documents - which is quite damning for Coutts - in favour of an assumption about what might be said in unrealeased documents. That certainly sounds like skewed analysis to me.
Not really. I'm making no assumptions. I'm making an accusation. I'm accusing you of making assumptions (or conclusions) based on incomplete evidence.
Nope, you are making assumpitions that whatever else Coutts holds about him will change the narrative and using that to discredit the argument that they have acted out of order.
No Richard, I'm really not. Read my post again. Carefully. Use your comprehension skills. Nowhere am I saying that. Again, you like Farage, you're entitled to, and you don't like me, as you're entitled not to, but I'm not saying it will change the narrative. The most you can say about my post is that I'm holding out the possibility it might. I'm a lawyer, I do evidence, and half the evidence is no evidence.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound The hilarious thing about the Coutts affair is that my really posh rich mates regard Coutts as a rather tawdry institution for its celebrity and lottery winner clients. The real poshos bank at Hoare’s
No, they don’t bank at Hoare’s
Nobody sensible banks with Hoares.
Their entire raison d'etre is to talk your money and then screw you...oh hold on, not that sort of whores.
As a parallel but related subject, in most of Cumberland the only financial institution that is actually liked is the local building society, which provides the services most people need and has a branch network in pretty obscure places. In these respects it is more use than Coutt's, Hoare's or indeed Globalgreedbank.
They only exist thus because they resisted the privatisation of the 1980s. Each of those building societies failed in their own way.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attacked by some men of arab descent, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
Wasn’t that because they went by what the attackers claimed was said.
Rather than getting an independent Yiddish translator to translate the actual audio?
If i remember they double f##ked up, they first took witness testimony from somebody who was there, who said the Jewish kids started it. But other media outlets investigated and found no evidence this was true. Then there was audio and they claimed a certain word was x, when it was y, because they didn't get a proper yiddish translation.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
PEPs are “Individuals who are or have been entrusted […] with prominent public functions”. He appears to fall under that definition, specifically the “have been” bit. That would be true even if he had become a cheesemaker or an acrobat.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Some years ago, it came out that in certain industries, lists of trade Union Activists had been compiled and they were systematically black balled for jobs.
Private employers freedom to hire who they chose, or an outrage?
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
Have you ever watched a boys' football or cricket match at age 13-14 and compared it to a girls'?
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Snooker isn't sex segregated. Anyone can compete in the WST and last season there were 4 women.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Sure, they do that too. Nor does 'politician' or 'politically actice person' fall within the statutory 'politically exposed person' at least as quoted a little while back here.
Edit: unless falling within the 'have been' bit, as Bondegezou points out just now. Which Mr F would. Doubt Mr Jones would - he was only a parliamentary researcher at one time, on checking.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Darts is and isn't.
Basically there is a Womens tour, a development tour and the main tour in the PDC. The women's tour is treated more as a development tour for women and a gateway for qualification for the main world championship, the greatest show on earth, at the end of December/start of Jan.
The main tour, which is where the prestige and the money is, is open to all comers. Anyone can rock up at Q-School every January and compete for a main tour card. Both in matchplay and a league basis. Women have won them in the past. Lisa Ashton won one a few years ago but failed to hold it. Fallon Sherrock turns up and fails woefully to get a card.
In the WDF there is a womens tour too, in fact one of the best players in it is a Dutch Trans Player.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Males do have a (general) advantage in snooker and darts because they tend to be taller and have longer reach. But snooker is no sex segregated I don't think. Women can qualify for the pro tour I believe?
...I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
So your argument is that if you had transitioned, and you retained the function you had prior, then you may have beaten her (italics for emphasis). It's plausible certainly[1] , but it's not an actual example.
[1] although I do not want to visualise a younger @DougSeal with boobs, thank you. YMMV.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Some years ago, it came out that in certain industries, lists of trade Union Activists had been compiled and they were systematically black balled for jobs.
Private employers freedom to hire who they chose, or an outrage?
I think the general consensus is that such activity is not acceptable. Certainly the media have given lots of positive PR for the likes of Ricky Tomlinson who had this treatment (despite some of his specific claims being somewhat dubious and he never produced the evidence he claimed he had).
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Sure, they do that too. Nor does 'politician' or 'politically actice person' fall within the statutory 'politically exposed person' at least as quoted a little while back here.
And that's the whole point, IMO that's wrong, be it Farage or Owen Jones...and they are both people I wish I never saw on the telly ever again and have me instantly changing the channel.
The SMO is sort of like Silent Witness at this point. You forget it's still going on and can't imagine who is still watching it.
Entirely off topics, I recall that you use FB marketplace for automotive stuff? I'm considering another vehicle (not even sure whether a bike or a car yet) and I've been looking there at reasonably local stuff, with my usual priorities of impractical and cheap. There seems to be some pretty dodgy stuff eg a Ducati Panigale for c.£4k which is obviously bullshit, but I can't see the grift. Is it just to get traffic to their page?
Usually incredibly crude scams run from overseas. They will create a sense of urgency and ask for a cash deposit then disappear. The cost of doing it is basically zero so they only need it to work 1 time out of 1000. FB owners' groups are where you want to be for the bargains. I am in over 60 such groups! The abandoned project or non-runner is the best bet for value. That's how I got my 997 Turbo for 30 grand. (Now sold for much, much more.)
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
Have you ever watched a boys' football or cricket match at age 13-14 and compared it to a girls'?
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Sure, they do that too. Nor does 'politician' or 'politically actice person' fall within the statutory 'politically exposed person' at least as quoted a little while back here.
And that's the whole point, its wrong, be it Farage or Owen Jones...both people I wish I never saw on the telly ever again.
See my amendment. Which casts a different light on the matter.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right?I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Bullshit. Citation please.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
So your argument is that if you had transitioned, and you retained the function you had prior, then you may have beaten her (italics for emphasis). It's plausible certainly[1] , but it's not an actual example.
[1] although I do not want to visualise a younger @DougSeal with boobs, thank you. YMMV.
If I had simply self-ID'd then yes, I would have retained the function I had previously. It's a hypothetical. As would be my boobs, which would have looked marvellous.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right?I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Bullshit. Citation please.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
So your argument is that if you had transitioned, and you retained the function you had prior, then you may have beaten her (italics for emphasis). It's plausible certainly[1] , but it's not an actual example.
[1] although I do not want to visualise a younger @DougSeal with boobs, thank you. YMMV.
If I had simply self-ID'd then yes, I would have retained the function I had previously. It's a hypothetical. As would be my boobs, which would have looked marvellous.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
The view was that women athletes were unseemly, and that it "wasn't right" for women to be athletic.
It was common for wealthier women in the late 18th century to play against men in tennis and golf at private clubs, but the idea that women could win against men put them off allowing that to continue into competitions.
Similarly for toilets; they were not segregated out of a desire to protect women from men - but due to the anxieties men had about women being out of the house. Whilst they use the language of "protection", academics have argued this was indeed a cover (like protecting women from lusty black men) for the creation of "separate spheres" for men and women:
Good grief, what is it with the obsession on PB with trans gender, a topic that I literally never hear anyone mention in the real world because nobody's interested?
One might almost believe one or two on here are protesting too much against their inner selves.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right?I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Bullshit. Citation please.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
So your argument is that if you had transitioned, and you retained the function you had prior, then you may have beaten her (italics for emphasis). It's plausible certainly[1] , but it's not an actual example.
[1] although I do not want to visualise a younger @DougSeal with boobs, thank you. YMMV.
If I had simply self-ID'd then yes, I would have retained the function I had previously. It's a hypothetical. As would be my boobs, which would have looked marvellous.
Female seals don’t have boobs. It wouldn’t be hydrodynamic.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right?I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Bullshit. Citation please.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
So your argument is that if you had transitioned, and you retained the function you had prior, then you may have beaten her (italics for emphasis). It's plausible certainly[1] , but it's not an actual example.
[1] although I do not want to visualise a younger @DougSeal with boobs, thank you. YMMV.
If I had simply self-ID'd then yes, I would have retained the function I had previously. It's a hypothetical. As would be my boobs, which would have looked marvellous.
You'd have had to shrink a hell of a lot to be at all convincing.
Girl and boy seal (admittedly of one of the more sexually dimorphic species IIRC):
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Darts has a womens’ championships as well, but the “men’s” category is actually “open”, so nothing to stop women entering if they can qualify.
Fallon Sherrock got to the 3rd round of the world championship last year, first woman to beat a man in that competition.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right?I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Bullshit. Citation please.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
So your argument is that if you had transitioned, and you retained the function you had prior, then you may have beaten her (italics for emphasis). It's plausible certainly[1] , but it's not an actual example.
[1] although I do not want to visualise a younger @DougSeal with boobs, thank you. YMMV.
If I had simply self-ID'd then yes, I would have retained the function I had previously. It's a hypothetical. As would be my boobs, which would have looked marvellous.
Female seals don’t have boobs. It wouldn’t be hydrodynamic.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Darts has a womens’ championships as well, but the “men’s” category is actually “open”, so nothing to stop women entering if they can qualify.
Fallon Sherrock got to the 3rd round of the world championship last year, first woman to beat a man in that competition.
I believe snooker world championship is open as well, it is just women haven't qualified in the way they have in the darts.
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
Lords was cashless as well when I was there last year. In fact I think all cricket grounds are, once you get inside. I think Trent Bridge might have been accepting cash to buy a ticket before entering.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
Have you ever watched a boys' football or cricket match at age 13-14 and compared it to a girls'?
Ergo times in rowing are quite conclusive.
Big advantage to men.
Don't know what ergometers do, but in general a big confounder is catchment or pool sizes: for most sports, probably 10x as many males as females think they are a good thing to devote time to. I have seen it suggested that women would probably run faster marathons than men, if more of them entered the sport. Same could plausibly be true of say cycling, given how much less of their own bodyweight they have to be propelling. For a rare example of the reverse phenomenon there's equestrianism where the sexes are pretty much equal, largely because it's an activity as or more popular with girls as with boys in most countries.
The SMO is sort of like Silent Witness at this point. You forget it's still going on and can't imagine who is still watching it.
Entirely off topics, I recall that you use FB marketplace for automotive stuff? I'm considering another vehicle (not even sure whether a bike or a car yet) and I've been looking there at reasonably local stuff, with my usual priorities of impractical and cheap. There seems to be some pretty dodgy stuff eg a Ducati Panigale for c.£4k which is obviously bullshit, but I can't see the grift. Is it just to get traffic to their page?
Usually incredibly crude scams run from overseas. They will create a sense of urgency and ask for a cash deposit then disappear. The cost of doing it is basically zero so they only need it to work 1 time out of 1000. FB owners' groups are where you want to be for the bargains. I am in over 60 such groups! The abandoned project or non-runner is the best bet for value. That's how I got my 997 Turbo for 30 grand. (Now sold for much, much more.)
Thanks. I guess it’s similar to the scattergun approach of ‘John’ from Sky calling to tell you that your computer security has been compromised, and if you just let him access your account..if one silly old sod out of a thousand falls for it, it works. Probably not coincidentally, the FB profiles doing this stuff often appear to be of Milfy type women.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Sure, they do that too. Nor does 'politician' or 'politically actice person' fall within the statutory 'politically exposed person' at least as quoted a little while back here.
And that's the whole point, its wrong, be it Farage or Owen Jones...both people I wish I never saw on the telly ever again.
Don't watch them then. Farage seems to be doing quite well as the almost-martyr of the moment. I tried to open an account at CelebDaq to see how he's faring there but I couldn't get in. He'll be able to charge more at Cameo if he still offers his services on that site.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
Nobody has get into bed with anyone else.
In much the same way that a private bank can choose who they get into bed with.
Something has changed, because presumably about 10 years ago when Nick Griffin was in the news a lot as leader of the BNP, he and his party were able to access banking services, despite being far more extreme than Nigel Farage.
Good luck to Our Gracious Host on his bet. (I'm of the view that a functioning democracy needs at least two rational parties, so I don't want to see either Labour or the Conservatives wiped out, though I think both could be more rational.)
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
It follows that Farage is also within his rights to attempt to impose a reputational cost on them for their handling of it.
Are you kidding? He's all over the news! Nigel the Martyr! They should be billing him...
I'm sure that among actual and potential Coutts customers the news will be seen as a net positive.
I'm sure. Even the most shameless of social climbers will be repulsed by one of their number trying to gain entry without having the means.
Good point about snooker: why aren't men and women playing against each other when strength isn't important 99.9% of the time? What about chess as well.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Darts has a womens’ championships as well, but the “men’s” category is actually “open”, so nothing to stop women entering if they can qualify.
Fallon Sherrock got to the 3rd round of the world championship last year, first woman to beat a man in that competition.
I believe snooker world championship is open as well, it is just women haven't qualified in the way they have in the darts.
Yes I think so. Open and women categories does seem the most logical way to arrange such things, especially if you’re trying to attract more women to your sport.
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
Christ on a bike. Have you ever actually met any transwomen? What attracts them and excites them is board games, open source software, and kayaking, pretty much.
Joyce was talking about autogynephiles who are prominent in some Trans Rights groups. I fear genuine trans people have been very badly served by some of their so called allies.
What is the evidence for the existence of "autogynephiles"?
Abstract
Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women's clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence. Some theorists and clinicians reject the transsexual typology and theory of motivation derived from autogynephilia; their objections suggest a need for additional research. The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called 'erotic target identity inversions', in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.
Indeed, gendered behaviours are noticed even in people with intersex conditions where they understand themselves as girls when prepubescent, and then as a third gender when puberty hits and they have fully usable testes:
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
That's just not true about the history of sports. Men don't argue for sex segregation in Chess, or Bridge, or any game where physical strength is of no relevance.
Snooker is sex segregated. I think darts is not. In neither case is strength a limiting factor, other than the ability to carry and deploy a cue/dart sufficiently.
Males do have a (general) advantage in snooker and darts because they tend to be taller and have longer reach. But snooker is no sex segregated I don't think. Women can qualify for the pro tour I believe?
I don't know the answer to the latter question I'm afraid.
As for the former, I assume that height and reach would only constitute an advantage if the averagely-built woman could not throw a dart into the board without overexertion. If Mr Biggy McBig can throw a dart into double tip with great force, but Miss Weeny McWeen can only throw it with great delicacy, then an advantage only exists if the latter's dart does not stick in...
...which brings me to a bugbear of mine: at what point does a phenomenon become an advantage? Much discussion in the trans sports sphere revolves around the performance of men compared to women. For example, the time it takes for a man to run 100m can be computed, and the time it takes a woman to run the same distance can be similarly computed. But this phenomenon can only become an advantage if it reflects in ordinality: specifically is the probability of a man coming first in a M&F race significantly greater than the probability of a woman doing so?
In a 100m race one can predict ordinality based on sex (neglecting effects due to hormones, but that's another discussion). But for darts, it's not so easy: does the greater reach of a man result in a significantly larger probability of winning when playing a woman? I suspect not, but to prove it I would have to find away of predicting ordinality from performance differentials (not easy if small), or look at actual examples.
Good grief, what is it with the obsession on PB with trans gender, a topic that I literally never hear anyone mention in the real world because nobody's interested?
One might almost believe one or two on here are protesting too much against their inner selves.
Good question. Why is there so much trans talk here?
I reckon it comes more from political nerdiness, though, than personal psychological issues. It could be traffic jams on the M25 or something else if that were ramped as much in the culture as trans stuff is.
In the "real world" I just take the piss and e.g. call trans types "transvestites" and wait for schmucks who are submissive to all the bullshit to "explain" wearily to me that no it's about transsexuals and that men who sometimes wear bras and panties don't necessarily want to be reassigned or to go non-binary. ("Reassigned" being best pronounced in a German accent for full effect.)
Things could be worse. The big issue of the day could be incest. From a libertarian point of view...yawn...
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
Have you ever watched a boys' football or cricket match at age 13-14 and compared it to a girls'?
Ergo times in rowing are quite conclusive.
Big advantage to men.
Don't know what ergometers do, but in general a big confounder is catchment or pool sizes: for most sports, probably 10x as many males as females think they are a good thing to devote time to. I have seen it suggested that women would probably run faster marathons than men, if more of them entered the sport. Same could plausibly be true of say cycling, given how much less of their own bodyweight they have to be propelling. For a rare example of the reverse phenomenon there's equestrianism where the sexes are pretty much equal, largely because it's an activity as or more popular with girls as with boys in most countries.
Rowing ergometers - aka rowing machines - are used competitively, in their own right. Worldwide.
With the advent of the web and people sharing their times online, there are databases of millions of athletes, ranging from rank amateur to Olympic.
These data sets have been analysed in x number of sports science PhDs
It’s quite clear in the data - middle aged, amateur blokes beat the times of national level women.
Good point about snooker: why aren't men and women playing against each other when strength isn't important 99.9% of the time? What about chess as well.
Off topic, but important: George Will plays contrarian -- and has some numbers to back him up: "Progressives’ obsessing about race is not only undiminished by decades of improvements in race relations (e.g., approval of interracial marriages was 4 percent in 1958 and 94 percent in 2021), it is inversely related to improvements. There are vocal interests with large political and lucrative financial stakes (e.g., the “diversity” consultants industry) in the myth of nonprogress. Similarly, portions of the government have an interest in insisting on its failure, despite trillions spent, to substantially improve economic equality: Hence the government’s practice of not counting transfer payments and tax rebates (the earned income tax credit) as income for those of modest means. Counting those augmentations of income would reveal that the 2021 poverty rate was not 11.6 percent, but 2 to 3 percent." (Links omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/19/economic-measure-human-progress/
(For the record: It is true that these successes have lead to new problems. Throughout 99 percent of human history, the idea that poor people could have a serious problem of obesity would have been considered laughable -- but it is a real problem in the US, now. But, if I may point out the obvious, it is less of a problem than the lack of food that so often plagued the poor in the past.)
Must say that Moeen at 3 looked like a cheap wicket which, together with the early loss of an opener, would put England under pressure. Delighted to have been proven wrong.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
Good point about snooker: why aren't men and women playing against each other when strength isn't important 99.9% of the time? What about chess as well.
They are. Just most women don't choose snooker, chess or darts.
Equestrianism is a sport with fairly equal participation at the higher ranks, it is dominated by women at the grassroots levels if you like. I think men are just naturally more competitive when it comes to sports as well as having obvious advantage where testosterone gives an implied advantage (All athletics, swimming, football, cricket, rugby and so on and so forth)
Something has changed, because presumably about 10 years ago when Nick Griffin was in the news a lot as leader of the BNP, he and his party were able to access banking services, despite being far more extreme than Nigel Farage.
Having a party with the same name as a French bank must have helped.
Good point about snooker: why aren't men and women playing against each other when strength isn't important 99.9% of the time? What about chess as well.
One problem with snooker for at least some women is their chests are liable to foul the balls as they lean over the table. Another problem is limited access (increasingly for men too, as many snooker clubs have shut). And although strength is not an issue in snooker, height and reach are.
But as I've posted before, enterprising girls schools should have dartboards and snooker tables in every common room. If you never throw a dart, you won't know if you'll be any good at it. Likewise pianos and horses.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Sure, they do that too. Nor does 'politician' or 'politically actice person' fall within the statutory 'politically exposed person' at least as quoted a little while back here.
And that's the whole point, its wrong, be it Farage or Owen Jones...both people I wish I never saw on the telly ever again.
Don't watch them then. Farage seems to be doing quite well as the almost-martyr of the moment. I tried to open an account at CelebDaq to see how he's faring there but I couldn't get in. He'll be able to charge more at Cameo if he still offers his services on that site.
Not heard Cameo mentioned for a couple of years! That was great fun during the pandemic, as hundreds of out-of-work actors and comedians still had mortgages to pay, and would sing Happy Birthday to your friend for $75.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
So you are effctively choosing to ignore what is said in the released documents - which is quite damning for Coutts - in favour of an assumption about what might be said in unrealeased documents. That certainly sounds like skewed analysis to me.
Not really. I'm making no assumptions. I'm making an accusation. I'm accusing you of making assumptions (or conclusions) based on incomplete evidence.
Nope, you are making assumpitions that whatever else Coutts holds about him will change the narrative and using that to discredit the argument that they have acted out of order.
No Richard, I'm really not. Read my post again. Carefully. Use your comprehension skills. Nowhere am I saying that. Again, you like Farage, you're entitled to, and you don't like me, as you're entitled not to, but I'm not saying it will change the narrative. The most you can say about my post is that I'm holding out the possibility it might. I'm a lawyer, I do evidence, and half the evidence is no evidence.
Wrong on at least two important points. I really' really don't like Farage. I have made that clear on here numerous times over the years. And I do actually like you - or at least enjoy debating with you. But the question of what other documents may or may not exist - which you introduced - is irrelevant. We can only work with the evidence we have in front of us, not make assumptions about what else might be conceealed from us.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
So they just haven't met the right (transwo)man...
Must say that Moeen at 3 looked like a cheap wicket which, together with the early loss of an opener, would put England under pressure. Delighted to have been proven wrong.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse.
Pourquoi?
Because the spin is he is a politically exposed person, but he is a talking head on a little watched tv channel not as you rightly state a politician. And yet the bank has a dossier on his opinions and friendships, that's quite sinster. Same as Triggernometry had their accounts closed while running a business arround a small podcast.
The way he gets quoted wall to wall on newspapers and media? Much more than you portray him as. For instance, the boat invasion defence stuff a year or so back.
So are the likes of Owen Jones or Martin Lewis...i hope banks aren't building dossiers on them either. It would be equally outrageous if Owen Jones was debanked and couldn't recieve money for his YouTube content.
Sure, they do that too. Nor does 'politician' or 'politically actice person' fall within the statutory 'politically exposed person' at least as quoted a little while back here.
And that's the whole point, its wrong, be it Farage or Owen Jones...both people I wish I never saw on the telly ever again.
Don't watch them then. Farage seems to be doing quite well as the almost-martyr of the moment. I tried to open an account at CelebDaq to see how he's faring there but I couldn't get in. He'll be able to charge more at Cameo if he still offers his services on that site.
Not heard Cameo mentioned for a couple of years! That was great fun during the pandemic, as hundreds of out-of-work actors and comedians still had mortgages to pay, and would sing Happy Birthday to your friend for $75.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I'm not going to lie, I don't really understand the arguments about "fairness in sports" - when it comes to basketball or Michael Phelps the biological advantages of height and just being physiologically weird are hunky dory, but if you happen to be an African women with slightly too much testosterone (but still within the range of a typical cis woman) you can't run with other women any more... Kinda feels that fairness isn't what people are gatekeeping.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
Have you ever watched a boys' football or cricket match at age 13-14 and compared it to a girls'?
Ergo times in rowing are quite conclusive.
Big advantage to men.
Don't know what ergometers do, but in general a big confounder is catchment or pool sizes: for most sports, probably 10x as many males as females think they are a good thing to devote time to. I have seen it suggested that women would probably run faster marathons than men, if more of them entered the sport. Same could plausibly be true of say cycling, given how much less of their own bodyweight they have to be propelling. For a rare example of the reverse phenomenon there's equestrianism where the sexes are pretty much equal, largely because it's an activity as or more popular with girls as with boys in most countries.
For endurance sports I think it is probably true if more women entered. Beryl Burton in cycling could outperform men. Leah Goldstein is another. There are also examples for long distance running and also long distance swimming.
Must say that Moeen at 3 looked like a cheap wicket which, together with the early loss of an opener, would put England under pressure. Delighted to have been proven wrong.
He's at 30, it's not proven wrong yet.
Eh ? He's above his average and the ball is 16 overs old. If he falls first ball after lunch he's done his job.
Good grief, what is it with the obsession on PB with trans gender, a topic that I literally never hear anyone mention in the real world because nobody's interested?
One might almost believe one or two on here are protesting too much against their inner selves.
Good question. Why is there so much trans talk here?
I reckon it comes more from political nerdiness, though, than personal psychological issues. It could be traffic jams on the M25 or something else if that were ramped as much in the culture as trans stuff is.
In the "real world" I just take the piss and e.g. call trans types "transvestites" and wait for schmucks who are submissive to all the bullshit to "explain" wearily to me that no it's about transsexuals and that men who sometimes wear bras and panties don't necessarily want to be reassigned or to go non-binary. ("Reassigned" being best pronounced in a German accent for full effect.)
Things could be worse. The big issue of the day could be incest. From a libertarian point of view...yawn...
Politics isn't logical, and neither are people who are interested in politics[1]. The question "why are people interested in X" is unanswerable, as people are interested in what they are interested in. Myself personally I would prefer to talk about betting on elections (the Spanish election is Sunday 23rd and we really should be covering it), but the majority of BTL commentators do not bet and prefer gabbing about politics. At length
Of course, if you would prefer me to explain wearily the differences between transvestites and transsexuals, I could do that instead [ducks]
Good point about snooker: why aren't men and women playing against each other when strength isn't important 99.9% of the time? What about chess as well.
One problem with snooker for at least some women is their chests are liable to foul the balls as they lean over the table. Another problem is limited access (increasingly for men too, as many snooker clubs have shut). And although strength is not an issue in snooker, height and reach are.
But as I've posted before, enterprising girls schools should have dartboards and snooker tables in every common room. If you never throw a dart, you won't know if you'll be any good at it. Likewise pianos and horses.
If you never throw a piano, you won’t know if you’ll be any good at it?
Good point about snooker: why aren't men and women playing against each other when strength isn't important 99.9% of the time? What about chess as well.
One problem with snooker for at least some women is their chests are liable to foul the balls as they lean over the table. Another problem is limited access (increasingly for men too, as many snooker clubs have shut). And although strength is not an issue in snooker, height and reach are.
But as I've posted before, enterprising girls schools should have dartboards and snooker tables in every common room. If you never throw a dart, you won't know if you'll be any good at it. Likewise pianos and horses.
Indeed. There’s been a lot of discussion about this in motorsport, where everyone wants to see a lady F1 driver.
The biggest problem is that it’s a numbers game, and more than 90% of the eight-year-olds entering go-kart competitions are boys. So the most obvious way to get a lady F1 driver 15 years from now, is to get more girls driving karts at primary school, instead of riding horses!
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
So you are effctively choosing to ignore what is said in the released documents - which is quite damning for Coutts - in favour of an assumption about what might be said in unrealeased documents. That certainly sounds like skewed analysis to me.
Not really. I'm making no assumptions. I'm making an accusation. I'm accusing you of making assumptions (or conclusions) based on incomplete evidence.
Nope, you are making assumpitions that whatever else Coutts holds about him will change the narrative and using that to discredit the argument that they have acted out of order.
No Richard, I'm really not. Read my post again. Carefully. Use your comprehension skills. Nowhere am I saying that. Again, you like Farage, you're entitled to, and you don't like me, as you're entitled not to, but I'm not saying it will change the narrative. The most you can say about my post is that I'm holding out the possibility it might. I'm a lawyer, I do evidence, and half the evidence is no evidence.
Nevertheless there's enough evidence within the materials placed by Farage on the internet to demonstrate NatWest's intention to remove Farage under the published economic criteria policy and that they did so at the point when he no longer met those criteria.
Now people may speculate those weren't NatWest's real intentions, and they certainly haven't leant backwards to hold onto Farage as a customer, but they seem to have been careful to stay within their published policy.
I don’t fxcking care if Farage is refused an account . The media is now obsessing about another thing no one gives a fig about .
I think it's really important and is a rare view of what goes on behind the curtain. It would be nice if it included public schools and other unseen areas of privilege where the family cheque book can and does buy you privilege. The saddos like Farage who have spent lifetime trying to be part of this elite are shocked when they discover that despite all their lifetime boot licking haven't quite made it and some junior official can just bring down the drawbridge with no questions answered.
Good point about snooker: why aren't men and women playing against each other when strength isn't important 99.9% of the time? What about chess as well.
One problem with snooker for at least some women is their chests are liable to foul the balls as they lean over the table. Another problem is limited access (increasingly for men too, as many snooker clubs have shut). And although strength is not an issue in snooker, height and reach are.
But as I've posted before, enterprising girls schools should have dartboards and snooker tables in every common room. If you never throw a dart, you won't know if you'll be any good at it. Likewise pianos and horses.
Horses in the common room would be a bit disruptive.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Yes they did...a load of kids got hassled and attackrd, and they even tried to spin audio of the Jewish kids were shouting racist abuse, when translated it was actually they were shit scared and screaming for help.
The BBC is the official news “gatekeeper” that the slow learner, @OnlyLivingBoy, wants to rely on in future when AI threatens the objectivity and truth of all news
Yes. The BBC. And the Guardian
Not only is the Beeb the offical news gatekeeper it is now the arbiter of what is true and what isn't through its BBC Verfiy initiative.
The slipping standards of journalism at the BBC are really noticeable unfortunately. Perhaps I should be fair and say that there are slipping standards across the board compared to say 10-15 years ago (The Guardian and Telegraph, publications I had a lot of respect for on different sides of the argument, have now completely dissolved into echo-chambers of their own self-righteousness), but it feels more depressing with the Beeb, somehow.
Take a look on the news website and not only does it give incredibly weird prominence to some stories over others and have very weird obsessions with certain issues, but it is very easy to find articles on there completely cluttered with assertions and blatant editorialising that simply wouldn’t have passed an editor in years gone by.
Good grief, what is it with the obsession on PB with trans gender, a topic that I literally never hear anyone mention in the real world because nobody's interested?
One might almost believe one or two on here are protesting too much against their inner selves.
Since gains for LGBTQ+ people, including the successes of equal marriage campaigns, the evangelical right have chosen trans people as a new wedge issue to try and grind down rights for all queer people and have spent money in other countries, notably countries in Africa, to enforce stricter measures against LGBTQ+ people.
This wedge issue works its way into the culture wars and therefore politics.
This is not me claiming every individual who believes these things is a paid member of these organisations, only that they are funding and organising the groups who do the campaigning and propagandising, leading to the increased discussion of it.
Comments
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
Having a testosterone puberty may be advantageous in some sports, but studies are pretty inconclusive that it is advantageous in all instances, especially if that person is then on HRT. But that should only be a consideration in competitive sports, right? When it comes to school sports or just for fun, even though sports tend to be gender segregated anyway, there is no need to do that for trans kids as it won't make a difference - and yet that is what anti trans activists want.
Yes. The BBC. And the Guardian
As for whether sex is bimodal, if all people were either male or female then the argument against bimodality may carry (although I'd maintain on a technicality that it is a special case of it), but the non-zero existence and incidence of intersex people, no matter how small in number, makes it bimodal. Please don't make me draw a curve.
Basically he volunteered to bat at 3 because somebody had to do it. Full marks to him.
- heads of state, heads of government, ministers, and deputy or assistant ministers
- members of parliament (MPs)
- members of courts of auditors or of the boards of central banks
- ambassadors, chargés d’affaires and high-ranking officers in the armed forces
- members of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of state-owned enterprises
- members of supreme courts, constitutional courts or other high-level judicial bodies whose decisions are not generally subject to further appeal, except in exceptional circumstances
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/peps
If your question is valid, what is the evidence for the existence of "transsexuals"?
I wonder what the reaction from some would be if the eco-fascists or Steve Bray were denied ban accounts under the same rules? And dossiers were been collected about all their activities?
I remember when people used to say about twitter banning people, well they are a private company they can do what they want...then they got a new owner, who did what he wanted, and then the same people said it was an outrage....
If you win, the case is no longer ongoing.
Each appeal is profit. And a final loss after x appeals is better for the outrage - which equals more fund raising from the gullible.
I still think that a political journo is a politically active person in a sense that being a mere voter doesn't make one. Vide the Spectator and its influence on the Johnson administration decision-making.
Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women's clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence. Some theorists and clinicians reject the transsexual typology and theory of motivation derived from autogynephilia; their objections suggest a need for additional research. The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called 'erotic target identity inversions', in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22005209/
What is the evidence for gender?
Bullshit. Citation please.
I've also noted before that the history of segregation of sports by gender had nothing to do with fairness, it had to do with men not wanting to compete against women, especially women who could beat them.
I was Canterbury and District Boys Under 15 200m Champion in both 1988 and 1989. I'm still very proud of it. As I know was my female counterpart in the latter year. That summer I came in 5th in the county championship posting a time that would have won the girls event by roughly two seconds. I knew the girl who won both district and county 200m that year, she was at Invicta East Kent Athletics Club at the same time as me, trained loads, whereas I had taken to having the odd cigarette, was hardly at training at that point, and was mildly addicted to King Sized Mars Bars.
Why would it have been fair for a mildly talented but lazy fat bastard like me, having hypothetically transitioned in early 1989, to compete and win against her having put so much into beating her peers? Why should I have deprived her of the pride she had in winning both the district and county 200m?
Rather than getting an independent Yiddish translator to translate the actual audio?
They only exist thus because they resisted the privatisation of the 1980s. Each of those building societies failed in their own way.
Private employers freedom to hire who they chose, or an outrage?
https://www.womenssnooker.com/about/faqs/
There is *also* a women's tour.
Edit: unless falling within the 'have been' bit, as Bondegezou points out just now. Which Mr F would. Doubt Mr Jones would - he was only a parliamentary researcher at one time, on checking.
Basically there is a Womens tour, a development tour and the main tour in the PDC. The women's tour is treated more as a development tour for women and a gateway for qualification for the main world championship, the greatest show on earth, at the end of December/start of Jan.
The main tour, which is where the prestige and the money is, is open to all comers. Anyone can rock up at Q-School every January and compete for a main tour card. Both in matchplay and a league basis. Women have won them in the past. Lisa Ashton won one a few years ago but failed to hold it. Fallon Sherrock turns up and fails woefully to get a card.
In the WDF there is a womens tour too, in fact one of the best players in it is a Dutch Trans Player.
[1] although I do not want to visualise a younger @DougSeal with boobs, thank you. YMMV.
Big advantage to men.
The view was that women athletes were unseemly, and that it "wasn't right" for women to be athletic.
It was common for wealthier women in the late 18th century to play against men in tennis and golf at private clubs, but the idea that women could win against men put them off allowing that to continue into competitions.
Similarly for toilets; they were not segregated out of a desire to protect women from men - but due to the anxieties men had about women being out of the house. Whilst they use the language of "protection", academics have argued this was indeed a cover (like protecting women from lusty black men) for the creation of "separate spheres" for men and women:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/sexist-origins-gender-segregated-bathrooms
One might almost believe one or two on here are protesting too much against their inner selves.
Girl and boy seal (admittedly of one of the more sexually dimorphic species IIRC):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/marlinharms/5401670248
Fallon Sherrock got to the 3rd round of the world championship last year, first woman to beat a man in that competition.
I guess it’s similar to the scattergun approach of ‘John’ from Sky calling to tell you that your computer security has been compromised, and if you just let him access your account..if one silly old sod out of a thousand falls for it, it works.
Probably not coincidentally, the FB profiles doing this stuff often appear to be of Milfy type women.
In much the same way that a private bank can choose who they get into bed with.
Tho they do have a high speed network. Unlike us
Cis children and trans children have pretty similar journeys with their understanding of gender:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909367116
Indeed, gender identity seems to be more significant to children then an understanding of race (which is socially constructed) at younger ages:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S006524071530001X
Indeed, gendered behaviours are noticed even in people with intersex conditions where they understand themselves as girls when prepubescent, and then as a third gender when puberty hits and they have fully usable testes:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222297/
As for the former, I assume that height and reach would only constitute an advantage if the averagely-built woman could not throw a dart into the board without overexertion. If Mr Biggy McBig can throw a dart into double tip with great force, but Miss Weeny McWeen can only throw it with great delicacy, then an advantage only exists if the latter's dart does not stick in...
...which brings me to a bugbear of mine: at what point does a phenomenon become an advantage? Much discussion in the trans sports sphere revolves around the performance of men compared to women. For example, the time it takes for a man to run 100m can be computed, and the time it takes a woman to run the same distance can be similarly computed. But this phenomenon can only become an advantage if it reflects in ordinality: specifically is the probability of a man coming first in a M&F race significantly greater than the probability of a woman doing so?
In a 100m race one can predict ordinality based on sex (neglecting effects due to hormones, but that's another discussion). But for darts, it's not so easy: does the greater reach of a man result in a significantly larger probability of winning when playing a woman? I suspect not, but to prove it I would have to find away of predicting ordinality from performance differentials (not easy if small), or look at actual examples.
I reckon it comes more from political nerdiness, though, than personal psychological issues. It could be traffic jams on the M25 or something else if that were ramped as much in the culture as trans stuff is.
In the "real world" I just take the piss and e.g. call trans types "transvestites" and wait for schmucks who are submissive to all the bullshit to "explain" wearily to me that no it's about transsexuals and that men who sometimes wear bras and panties don't necessarily want to be reassigned or to go non-binary. ("Reassigned" being best pronounced in a German accent for full effect.)
Things could be worse. The big issue of the day could be incest. From a libertarian point of view...yawn...
With the advent of the web and people sharing their times online, there are databases of millions of athletes, ranging from rank amateur to Olympic.
These data sets have been analysed in x number of sports science PhDs
It’s quite clear in the data - middle aged, amateur blokes beat the times of national level women.
https://croquetscores.com/2023/gc/british-open-championship
Evidently not segregated, but just one Jenny in a sea of blokes. Perhaps men are just more confrontational.
He has been refused a specific account with a specific bank. Happens to millions of people
He should be paying Coutts for generating enough publicity to get him back on TV
(Links omitted.)
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/19/economic-measure-human-progress/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
(For the record: It is true that these successes have lead to new problems. Throughout 99 percent of human history, the idea that poor people could have a serious problem of obesity would have been considered laughable -- but it is a real problem in the US, now. But, if I may point out the obvious, it is less of a problem than the lack of food that so often plagued the poor in the past.)
Equestrianism is a sport with fairly equal participation at the higher ranks, it is dominated by women at the grassroots levels if you like.
I think men are just naturally more competitive when it comes to sports as well as having obvious advantage where testosterone gives an implied advantage (All athletics, swimming, football, cricket, rugby and so on and so forth)
But as I've posted before, enterprising girls schools should have dartboards and snooker tables in every common room. If you never throw a dart, you won't know if you'll be any good at it. Likewise pianos and horses.
Of course, if you would prefer me to explain wearily the differences between transvestites and transsexuals, I could do that instead [ducks]
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/european-politics/spain-general-election/winner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Spanish_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election
[1] Except for me of course. I'm perfect, obvs...
The biggest problem is that it’s a numbers game, and more than 90% of the eight-year-olds entering go-kart competitions are boys. So the most obvious way to get a lady F1 driver 15 years from now, is to get more girls driving karts at primary school, instead of riding horses!
Now people may speculate those weren't NatWest's real intentions, and they certainly haven't leant backwards to hold onto Farage as a customer, but they seem to have been careful to stay within their published policy.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/licensed-image?q=tbn:ANd9GcSowPvzrNgVnSD1tdZ3Kz6vOeqKY4VyFrAjT8kBjUYqlNsFsyjXgFUPC3HoQi3edCLYUxMKyaQXCmOpN7E
Take a look on the news website and not only does it give incredibly weird prominence to some stories over others and have very weird obsessions with certain issues, but it is very easy to find articles on there completely cluttered with assertions and blatant editorialising that simply wouldn’t have passed an editor in years gone by.
https://newrepublic.com/article/165403/groups-pushing-anti-trans-laws-want-divide-lgbtq-movement
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/19/africa-uganda-evangelicals-homophobia-antigay-bill/
https://time.com/5903931/christian-right-conservative-agenda-europe-report/
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-us-is-exporting-anti-lgbtq-hate-online
https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/06/03/lgb-alliance-gary-powell-center-bioethics-culture-alliance-defending-freedom-anti-lgbt/
This wedge issue works its way into the culture wars and therefore politics.
This is not me claiming every individual who believes these things is a paid member of these organisations, only that they are funding and organising the groups who do the campaigning and propagandising, leading to the increased discussion of it.