A transplanted limb (specifically an arm) will, thru somatic adaptation, change its size and skin color to (approximately?) match the recipient, even if the donor and recipient are different sexes and races.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
Any news from the by-elections, from people in those areas?
Turnout is probably 'brisk' - thats what we usually hear.....
Not much in the way of pics of dogs at polling stations up. Barkingly low turnout expected. Good people of Middlesex and Yorkshire (and their dogs) should be following the cricket anyway.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
They'd be accused of treason. Believe me, it happens even on here.
I just don't get it. A friend of mine in the civil service used to date someone who worked in the palace and it was considered relatively common knowledge there that William dallied, but the British tabloids won't touch it. So if you're Harry seeing stories attacking Meghan for doing things Kate has also done, also dealing with the fact the royal family are mad and seem more willing to defend an alleged sex offender more than Diana before and Meghan now - I can see why there might be resentment, or at least a sense of unfairness. And no longer doing official duties seems like a reasonable reaction to that.
I think the moderators should take down this obvious libel.
Is ManofGwent code for Prince of Wales? Princes are men, and Gwent is a Welsh county. I have put 2 and 2 together and have a salmon sandwich.
About as likely as your friend's friend who worked at the palace.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
They also "don't care" about royals, yet are quite interested in spreading rumours about them. Funny that.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Well they could have had the same protections, but didn’t want to do the work required.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
No, they are rich people who want to stay rich by playing on their former connections. They lost those connections because they weren't willing to do the job required by their position but still expected to reap the benefits.
At a time when everyone has been talking about the hangers on in the Royal Family they were the perfect example of just that issue and can have absolutely no cause for complaint when any damage done to them is entirely self inflicted
I mean, what does Andrew do to justify his wealth? And Edward? Every rich person is an influence peddler of some kind - we need only look at ex PM Truss for that.
If the job for Harry and Meghan was to look nice and smile for the camera - they did do that. I doubt they agreed to be the magnet for all negativity the royals would receive in the British press because Andrew was Lizzie's favourite and Will will one day most likely be King.
No, the job of the royals is to do hundreds of official engagements a year. That was what they get paid for and what they get the police protection for. Andrew doesn't do that and as a result he is no longer receives money from the Sovereign Support Grant and does not get police protection.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
I do remember, just before they got married, when "Sherlock" portrayed someone very much like Kate as a masochistic lesbian, and her marriage a sham, and I was really surprised they got away with that.
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
They won't get a full day of play tomorrow. I think there's a decent chance of there being less than 80 overs played over days 3-5.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
If the British discourse about literally any other slightly famous person is the bar, then it isn't weird at all.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
They also "don't care" about royals, yet are quite interested in spreading rumours about them. Funny that.
The thread had spent ages going into the topic of Harry and Meghan, but I'm the weird one for responding to that entire conversation... Right...
Will be a real shame if the Ashes is decided all because of 2.5 days of the test match being washed out.
We all want 2-2 going to the final test.
I’m hoping if England get level with these two still in, or even one more down, then they will just go full 20/20 batting afterwards to ramp as big a lead as quick as possible. Even if they tell one of them to anchor the innings and let everyone else come in and smash.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
They also "don't care" about royals, yet are quite interested in spreading rumours about them. Funny that.
The thread had spent ages going into the topic of Harry and Meghan, but I'm the weird one for responding to that entire conversation... Right...
I didn't say you were weird. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of someone claiming to not care about the royals spending the last 30m talking about nothing but.
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
I expect at least some play on Sunday unless the ground is waterlogged.
What makes you confident for Sunday?
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
I watched Crawley get two ducks on the same day in a county match at Edgbaston at the start of the season this year. I had thought his place in the England side might be under threat due to those performances.
Will be a real shame if the Ashes is decided all because of 2.5 days of the test match being washed out.
We all want 2-2 going to the final test.
I’m hoping if England get level with these two still in, or even one more down, then they will just go full 20/20 batting afterwards to ramp as big a lead as quick as possible. Even if they tell one of them to anchor the innings and let everyone else come in and smash.
I think that's the right approach. Brook, Stokes and Bairstow are all fearsome T20 batters, nothing to lose sending them in with mission of 10 an over until the end of play i.e. ~200 more runs today.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
They also "don't care" about royals, yet are quite interested in spreading rumours about them. Funny that.
The thread had spent ages going into the topic of Harry and Meghan, but I'm the weird one for responding to that entire conversation... Right...
When reading this, I first thought this was one of those amusing new thread comments people post.
Would have been more entertaining than droning on about the royals/ex-royals for longer. Come on, there's Cricket on, WGAF about Harry and Meg/Wills and Kate?
I thought the conventional wisdom among your XR lot is short-haul flights were absolutely the worst and totally unnecessary, regardless of how they are powered?
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
Such a blessing that we have you here to spread rumours about Will and Kate which is not at all weird.
They also "don't care" about royals, yet are quite interested in spreading rumours about them. Funny that.
The thread had spent ages going into the topic of Harry and Meghan, but I'm the weird one for responding to that entire conversation... Right...
When reading this, I first thought this was one of those amusing new thread comments people post.
Would have been more entertaining than droning on about the royals/ex-royals for longer. Come on, there's Cricket on, WGAF about Harry and Meg/Wills and Kate?
Agree. So, what do they make of it all in Canada? The cricket, I mean, of course.
Will be a real shame if the Ashes is decided all because of 2.5 days of the test match being washed out.
We all want 2-2 going to the final test.
Yes; sad to say I think the draw is the value bet at the moment. I think England's best tactic is bat on fast as possible to get 150 lead while batting conditions are good, and hope for enough good bowling conditions later. I don't fancy their chances of quick wickets later today.
I find the whole Harry / Meghan discourse weird. They are rich people doing rich people things who have removed themselves from the circle of absolutely mad rich people. Good on them?
That no one in the UK talks about William and Kate in that manner (despite many well sourced stories outside of the UK that often discuss William's affairs, which are seemingly well known about like his father's before him) is really weird to me. I don't care about the royals as royals, as a republican, but it does seem to be the case that Harry as the spare in the modern era where spares aren't needed is used as the news media shield for his brother to keep a squeaky clean image ahead of inheriting the throne.
We all know about the pegging thing.
We've heard the stories that William is the Prince of Pegging, but we have no idea whether they are true or not.
I mean it's also a pretty common rumour that he is bisexual, but again the royal's have no desire to deny or confirm that either. Whereas the marriage of Harry and Meghan is scrutinised to the nth degree all the time.
The problem is that some people dislike the Royal Family.
Sorry, that is not the problem. The problem is that people dislike them so much they'll invent any old rubbish about them. This 'rumour' sounds like the standard sort of rumour that gets invented all the time about prominent people.
So it might be true: but it's probably just rubbish. Hence ignore - until better 'evidence' comes out...
I thought the conventional wisdom among your XR lot is short-haul flights were absolutely the worst and totally unnecessary, regardless of how they are powered?
"On board, further radical steps will be taken to further reduce the impact of the aviation industry, including serving plant-based meals ..."
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
I expect at least some play on Sunday unless the ground is waterlogged.
What makes you confident for Sunday?
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
Who are you using for your weather forecasts?
If you want to get a better sense for the weather you have to stop looking at the site specific forecasts and start looking at the forecast maps. This will give you a better idea of the character of the weather.
Looking at the Met Office forecast rainfall charts we can see that there are lots of showers forecast for tomorrow and Sunday, but on Sunday they clear up during the day. That makes sense when you look at the pressure charts, because they show the low pressure moving east and pressure rising, which you would expect would inhibit the showers.
Could be a fun England run chase on Sunday evening.
I thought the conventional wisdom among your XR lot is short-haul flights were absolutely the worst and totally unnecessary, regardless of how they are powered?
"On board, further radical steps will be taken to further reduce the impact of the aviation industry, including serving plant-based meals ..."
No thanks. Next.
I notice all that bullshit PR stunt about first woman football manager, she was quietly shuffled off after a 10 days and one friendly match. Even though the small print was only caretaker manager, I imagine she feels very used as there is caretaker and there is being exploited just to make a PR stunt.
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
I expect at least some play on Sunday unless the ground is waterlogged.
What makes you confident for Sunday?
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
Who are you using for your weather forecasts?
If you want to get a better sense for the weather you have to stop looking at the site specific forecasts and start looking at the forecast maps. This will give you a better idea of the character of the weather.
Looking at the Met Office forecast rainfall charts we can see that there are lots of showers forecast for tomorrow and Sunday, but on Sunday they clear up during the day. That makes sense when you look at the pressure charts, because they show the low pressure moving east and pressure rising, which you would expect would inhibit the showers.
Could be a fun England run chase on Sunday evening.
That’s what I think. We COULD get 2-3 hours later on Sunday which might just be enough
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
I expect at least some play on Sunday unless the ground is waterlogged.
What makes you confident for Sunday?
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
Who are you using for your weather forecasts?
If you want to get a better sense for the weather you have to stop looking at the site specific forecasts and start looking at the forecast maps. This will give you a better idea of the character of the weather.
Looking at the Met Office forecast rainfall charts we can see that there are lots of showers forecast for tomorrow and Sunday, but on Sunday they clear up during the day. That makes sense when you look at the pressure charts, because they show the low pressure moving east and pressure rising, which you would expect would inhibit the showers.
Could be a fun England run chase on Sunday evening.
Google. As I said, weather forecasting is not my thing normally. I just put into Google "Old Trafford Cricket Ground weather forecast" and got this coming up, then clicked precipitation and looked at each of the days, this is Sunday.
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
I expect at least some play on Sunday unless the ground is waterlogged.
What makes you confident for Sunday?
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
Who are you using for your weather forecasts?
If you want to get a better sense for the weather you have to stop looking at the site specific forecasts and start looking at the forecast maps. This will give you a better idea of the character of the weather.
Looking at the Met Office forecast rainfall charts we can see that there are lots of showers forecast for tomorrow and Sunday, but on Sunday they clear up during the day. That makes sense when you look at the pressure charts, because they show the low pressure moving east and pressure rising, which you would expect would inhibit the showers.
Could be a fun England run chase on Sunday evening.
Google. As I said, weather forecasting is not my thing normally. I just put into Google "Old Trafford Cricket Ground weather forecast" and got this coming up, then clicked precipitation and looked at each of the days, this is Sunday.
Isn't that the weather forecast for every day in Manchester ;-)
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
I think it's become compulsory on PB, malc. You won't be able to post until you can tell the difference between a male turnip and a female one.
Viewcode, I doubt I will ever get past Man & Woman permutations, imagine difficult with turnips though.
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
I expect at least some play on Sunday unless the ground is waterlogged.
What makes you confident for Sunday?
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
Who are you using for your weather forecasts?
If you want to get a better sense for the weather you have to stop looking at the site specific forecasts and start looking at the forecast maps. This will give you a better idea of the character of the weather.
Looking at the Met Office forecast rainfall charts we can see that there are lots of showers forecast for tomorrow and Sunday, but on Sunday they clear up during the day. That makes sense when you look at the pressure charts, because they show the low pressure moving east and pressure rising, which you would expect would inhibit the showers.
Could be a fun England run chase on Sunday evening.
Google. As I said, weather forecasting is not my thing normally. I just put into Google "Old Trafford Cricket Ground weather forecast" and got this coming up, then clicked precipitation and looked at each of the days, this is Sunday.
The proportion of students in England awarded first-class degrees has fallen for the first time in over a decade, the university watchdog says. The Office for Students (OfS) says 32.8% achieved top grades in 2021-22, down from 37.4% in 2020-21.
But the percentage remains higher than before the Covid pandemic and concerns remain about the overall increase since 2010-11, when it was 15.5%.
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
I thought the conventional wisdom among your XR lot is short-haul flights were absolutely the worst and totally unnecessary, regardless of how they are powered?
I just booked a holiday involving a couple of 20 minute flights, which does feel like a bit of an eco-sin (apparently the ferry isn't running in October...)
The proportion of students in England awarded first-class degrees has fallen for the first time in over a decade, the university watchdog says. The Office for Students (OfS) says 32.8% achieved top grades in 2021-22, down from 37.4% in 2020-21.
But the percentage remains higher than before the Covid pandemic and concerns remain about the overall increase since 2010-11, when it was 15.5%.
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
I think it's become compulsory on PB, malc. You won't be able to post until you can tell the difference between a male turnip and a female one.
Turnips are both (possibly sequentially within each flower, I forget the details).
I thought the conventional wisdom among your XR lot is short-haul flights were absolutely the worst and totally unnecessary, regardless of how they are powered?
I just booked a holiday involving a couple of 20 minute flights, which does feel like a bit of an eco-sin (apparently the ferry isn't running in October...)
As long as you have the vegan food option, its all forgiven.....
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
What's one extra day of rain then?
Flash floods don't happen every day.
Well obviously you'd seed the clouds over an extended area, rather than focusing all of the rainfall in one area.
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
The Irish don’t have airspace. It it literally and practically ours as we defend it for them at our expense via the RAF
So this is the price for their century of freeloading. Tough shit
The proportion of students in England awarded first-class degrees has fallen for the first time in over a decade, the university watchdog says. The Office for Students (OfS) says 32.8% achieved top grades in 2021-22, down from 37.4% in 2020-21.
But the percentage remains higher than before the Covid pandemic and concerns remain about the overall increase since 2010-11, when it was 15.5%.
Looking at the weather forecast for Old Trafford, it seems like Day 3 we ought to get a full day's play *touch wood* but day 4 is almost certainly a washout and day 5 probably will be too.
So I guess best plan of action is to keep bazballing it about, aim to declare before Lunch tomorrow with ~150 run lead and treat tomorrow as day 5 and try to bowl them out in one day.
Fingers crossed. Would be a shame to see this Test washed out.
I expect at least some play on Sunday unless the ground is waterlogged.
What makes you confident for Sunday?
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
Who are you using for your weather forecasts?
If you want to get a better sense for the weather you have to stop looking at the site specific forecasts and start looking at the forecast maps. This will give you a better idea of the character of the weather.
Looking at the Met Office forecast rainfall charts we can see that there are lots of showers forecast for tomorrow and Sunday, but on Sunday they clear up during the day. That makes sense when you look at the pressure charts, because they show the low pressure moving east and pressure rising, which you would expect would inhibit the showers.
Could be a fun England run chase on Sunday evening.
Google. As I said, weather forecasting is not my thing normally. I just put into Google "Old Trafford Cricket Ground weather forecast" and got this coming up, then clicked precipitation and looked at each of the days, this is Sunday.
Well, yes, that explains a lot.
Does anyone else think that Google have coasted for the last decade or two? A lot of their services were much better than the competition when they first launched, but they seem not to have improved since.
I'm sure they could aggregate good weather forecasts, presented in a useful way, if they wanted to, but they don't seem to be bothered about doing it well. The navigation on maps hasn't improved either.
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
What's one extra day of rain then?
Flash floods don't happen every day.
Well obviously you'd seed the clouds over an extended area, rather than focusing all of the rainfall in one area.
In which case you become liable for every single weather issue. Imagine being sued by every football, agric show, wedding, etc. venue across the area, never mind the flooding. Wouldn't get insyrance.
Drinks have come at a bad time for us. They so often bring a wicket.
I can remember when drinks only used to happen if it was a particularly hot day. I wonder when exactly it changed.
Global warming propoganda.
Or propAganda even. A muggy 35 degrees here - SE Spain- totally typical for July/August but unusually the forecast for next week suggesting less humidity and temps back to the low 30's. Heaven!
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
The Irish don’t have airspace. It it literally and practically ours as we defend it for them at our expense via the RAF
So this is the price for their century of freeloading. Tough shit
Interesting to see the imperial mindset still exists, the mental equuvalent of a walk through Vienna.
Drinks have come at a bad time for us. They so often bring a wicket.
I can remember when drinks only used to happen if it was a particularly hot day. I wonder when exactly it changed.
Global warming propoganda.
Or propAganda even. A muggy 35 degrees here - SE Spain- totally typical for July/August but unusually the forecast for next week suggesting less humidity and temps back to the low 30's. Heaven!
Balmy here today , must be near 18 C,
I was positively sweating this morning, when the sun came out. Fortunately it went back in eventually.
I thought the conventional wisdom among your XR lot is short-haul flights were absolutely the worst and totally unnecessary, regardless of how they are powered?
"On board, further radical steps will be taken to further reduce the impact of the aviation industry, including serving plant-based meals ..."
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
What's one extra day of rain then?
Flash floods don't happen every day.
Well obviously you'd seed the clouds over an extended area, rather than focusing all of the rainfall in one area.
In which case you become liable for every single weather issue. Imagine being sued by every football, agric show, wedding, etc. venue across the area, never mind the flooding. Wouldn't get insyrance.
Jus a bit of rain. Of course you'd do it at levels where no one would suspect it was anything unnatural. Who needs insurance for a light shower?
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.
The departing CEO of Stonewall called lesbians who did not want to have sex with men, no matter what they called or felt themselves to be, "sexual racists". This is meant to be a charity advocating for lesbians but attacks them for not wanting sex with men. The same organisation has been openly campaigning since 2015 for the removal of all single and separate sex exemptions in the Equality Act and the replacement of sex by gender, a move which would deprive women of existing rights and make it very much harder to fight against sex-based discrimination eg in relation to pay.
And it has the nerve to call itself a civil rights group.
The proportion of students in England awarded first-class degrees has fallen for the first time in over a decade, the university watchdog says. The Office for Students (OfS) says 32.8% achieved top grades in 2021-22, down from 37.4% in 2020-21.
But the percentage remains higher than before the Covid pandemic and concerns remain about the overall increase since 2010-11, when it was 15.5%.
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
I had thought the total of the averages would see the Australian 'par' score, be a lot more than England's, but actually it is only around 393 vs 374 or so. Harry Brook being early in his career with a high average helps.
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.
The departing CEO of Stonewall called lesbians who did not want to have sex with men, no matter what they called or felt themselves to be, "sexual racists". This is meant to be a charity advocating for lesbians but attacks them for not wanting sex with men. The same organisation has been openly campaigning since 2015 for the removal of all single and separate sex exemptions in the Equality Act and the replacement of sex by gender, a move which would deprive women of existing rights and make it very much harder to fight against sex-based discrimination eg in relation to pay.
And it has the nerve to call itself a civil rights group.
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
The Irish don’t have airspace. It it literally and practically ours as we defend it for them at our expense via the RAF
So this is the price for their century of freeloading. Tough shit
Interesting to see the imperial mindset still exists, the mental equuvalent of a walk through Vienna.
Is it that imperial when the Irish do let us use their airspace?
The proportion of students in England awarded first-class degrees has fallen for the first time in over a decade, the university watchdog says. The Office for Students (OfS) says 32.8% achieved top grades in 2021-22, down from 37.4% in 2020-21.
But the percentage remains higher than before the Covid pandemic and concerns remain about the overall increase since 2010-11, when it was 15.5%.
We are going to need new, 1st+. 1st++, 1st+++ categories.
When I was at University, the proportion of Firsts in Law was about 5% of the total.
There's no doubt that the value of a First Class degree has been reduced by grade inflation.
I don't know the exact percentage when I graduated, but at least in my subject, we definitely could have all shared a small minibus and it was pretty much all people who were going on to further study.
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.
The departing CEO of Stonewall called lesbians who did not want to have sex with men, no matter what they called or felt themselves to be, "sexual racists". This is meant to be a charity advocating for lesbians but attacks them for not wanting sex with men. The same organisation has been openly campaigning since 2015 for the removal of all single and separate sex exemptions in the Equality Act and the replacement of sex by gender, a move which would deprive women of existing rights and make it very much harder to fight against sex-based discrimination eg in relation to pay.
And it has the nerve to call itself a civil rights group.
Stonewall has become loathsome.
There must be a good case for closing them down. We should get Jolyon on to it, except he always loses
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.
The departing CEO of Stonewall called lesbians who did not want to have sex with men, no matter what they called or felt themselves to be, "sexual racists". This is meant to be a charity advocating for lesbians but attacks them for not wanting sex with men. The same organisation has been openly campaigning since 2015 for the removal of all single and separate sex exemptions in the Equality Act and the replacement of sex by gender, a move which would deprive women of existing rights and make it very much harder to fight against sex-based discrimination eg in relation to pay.
And it has the nerve to call itself a civil rights group.
Stonewall has become loathsome.
There must be a good case for closing them down. We should get Jolyon on to it, except he always loses
Persuade him to defend them... then you'll be fine.
The proportion of students in England awarded first-class degrees has fallen for the first time in over a decade, the university watchdog says. The Office for Students (OfS) says 32.8% achieved top grades in 2021-22, down from 37.4% in 2020-21.
But the percentage remains higher than before the Covid pandemic and concerns remain about the overall increase since 2010-11, when it was 15.5%.
We are going to need new, 1st+. 1st++, 1st+++ categories.
When I was at University, the proportion of Firsts in Law was about 5% of the total.
There's no doubt that the value of a First Class degree has been reduced by grade inflation.
I don't know the exact percentage when I graduated, but at least in my subject, we definitely could have all shared a small minibus and it was pretty much all people who were going on to further study.
It was about 5% 1st, 30% 2:1, 50% 2:2, 10% Third or Pass. There were very few failures, simply because they would have dropped out before the end.
Why can’t we seed the clouds to stop the rain like they used to do in the USSR?
The idea was to make it rain ...
To make it rain somewhere else.
So where? Would often have to be Ireland, or Cornwall/Devon, which get more than enough already. The Irish wouldn't let UK planes seed in their airspace. And the Cornubians would be twitchy - the first Boscastle or Lymnouth that happens in the resulting flash flood (never mind the conspiracy theory, though actually distinc tly odd coincidence, of the latter happening after cloud seeding experiments).
The Irish don’t have airspace. It it literally and practically ours as we defend it for them at our expense via the RAF
So this is the price for their century of freeloading. Tough shit
The airmass likely to rain over Manchester for the next few days mostly passes over Northern Ireland anyway. Nothing to do with the Republic.
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
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.
Would you care to comment on the Arcus Foundation, a US-based foundation which provided funds to Stonewall after equal marriage was won and which also funds US evangelical groups. It also funds one of the UN rapporteurs on LGBT issues.
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.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
The Ukrainian staff of the temporarily occupied Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant refuses to comply with the order of the occupation "management of the plant" to transfer power unit No. 4 from a "cold shutdown" to a "hot shutdown" state, the press service of @energoatom_ua reports https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1682049624339619840
Can someone provide a direct link to Nancy Kelley's(ex Stonewall CEO) comment about "sexual racists", as mentioned below? A quick Google shows lots of reports of the comments, but not the actual comment or its context.
Comments
https://youtube.com/shorts/ATgOz8GXowA?feature=share
A transplanted limb (specifically an arm) will, thru somatic adaptation, change its size and skin color to (approximately?) match the recipient, even if the donor and recipient are different sexes and races.
We all want 2-2 going to the final test.
Reading weather forecasts is not my forte but looking at what I can see there's a fairly consistent 80-85% chance of precipitation all day on Sunday which makes it seem like rain is going to be pretty consistent and any breaks I'm not confident would be long enough to mop up the rain and get play going again before it restarts.
OTOH if there is off again, on again play it could be great for taking wickets, so no early declarations today presumably.
Would have been more entertaining than droning on about the royals/ex-royals for longer. Come on, there's Cricket on, WGAF about Harry and Meg/Wills and Kate?
I did say this morning to see how it develops before rushing to judgment
Ecojet: Dale Vince launches an aviation revolution
Short-term, to secure routes and a license from the Civil Aviation Authority, Ecojet will initially launch using conventionally fuelled planes.
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-news/2023/ecojet-dale-vince-launches-an-aviation-revolution
I thought the conventional wisdom among your XR lot is short-haul flights were absolutely the worst and totally unnecessary, regardless of how they are powered?
Sorry, that is not the problem. The problem is that people dislike them so much they'll invent any old rubbish about them. This 'rumour' sounds like the standard sort of rumour that gets invented all the time about prominent people.
So it might be true: but it's probably just rubbish. Hence ignore - until better 'evidence' comes out...
No thanks. Next.
If you want to get a better sense for the weather you have to stop looking at the site specific forecasts and start looking at the forecast maps. This will give you a better idea of the character of the weather.
Looking at the Met Office forecast rainfall charts we can see that there are lots of showers forecast for tomorrow and Sunday, but on Sunday they clear up during the day. That makes sense when you look at the pressure charts, because they show the low pressure moving east and pressure rising, which you would expect would inhibit the showers.
Could be a fun England run chase on Sunday evening.
CEO: "M&S is left with no choice but to review Oxford St future on one man's whim. Utterly pathetic"
Gov source: "It's not just a tantrum, it's an M&S tantrum"
https://twitter.com/politlcsuk/status/1682038607887110146
Derrrr
I was reminded of George Bernard Shaw and Stalin.
But the percentage remains higher than before the Covid pandemic and concerns remain about the overall increase since 2010-11, when it was 15.5%.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-66259391
We are going to need new, 1st+. 1st++, 1st+++ categories.
So this is the price for their century of freeloading. Tough shit
Does anyone else think that Google have coasted for the last decade or two? A lot of their services were much better than the competition when they first launched, but they seem not to have improved since.
I'm sure they could aggregate good weather forecasts, presented in a useful way, if they wanted to, but they don't seem to be bothered about doing it well. The navigation on maps hasn't improved either.
And it has the nerve to call itself a civil rights group.
There's no doubt that the value of a First Class degree has been reduced by grade inflation.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/england-v-australia-betting-32466783
Something's gone wrong with my feed. It's showing Crawley hitting a six to take England to a first innings lead, two down.
Does anyone know what the real score is?
Very different sort of 185 though!
The Ukrainian staff of the temporarily occupied Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant refuses to comply with the order of the occupation "management of the plant" to transfer power unit No. 4 from a "cold shutdown" to a "hot shutdown" state, the press service of @energoatom_ua reports
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1682049624339619840
TIA.