I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
That reads as a response to something I didn't say.
You said that it was unnecessary provocative and puerile, your words.
Its neither unnecessary nor puerile to stand up for free speech when its under attack.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
That reads as a response to something I didn't say.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
Hobbes is the one who stuck with me the most.
But I agree with everyone's positive posts on Mill - my recollection was of it feeling very fresh still. Unlike the works of his contemporaries like Carlyle etc. which have dated badly.
Rawls for me but a lot of his thinking is based on Mills. "Liberty lies in the rights of that person whose views you find most odious." Timeless.
Given the Online Safety Act, Gove's Extremism guidance, Humza's Hate Monster Act, and other bits of illiberal thingies over the past five years, the settled will of the British people seems to be to throw JSM out of the window onto the spikes below and spend the rest of time arguing about the details of what speech should be suppressed and when. I didn't invent the #PBfreespeech hashtag for nothing. JSM is a prophet without honour in his own land.
As JS Mill himself said:
"How can great minds be produced in a country where the test of great minds is agreeing in the opinion of small minds?"
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That's a fine statement; as long as you also ignore the ferocity of some anti-trans activists...
They are such mirror images of each other, that sometime you get lost on which side is hating on what.
Why don't the Tories try and control legal migration? It seems like something they can easily reduce if they want to, this making illegal immigration such a problem when even if it was solved would do the square root of sod all for quality of life is puzzling.
It's the one thing I thought they would actually do after Brexit.
Interesting Opinion commissioned by Wings over Scotland.
The bigger question being why is a website I believe dedicated to Scottish Independence so concerned with the hoo-haa around who calls themselves a woman.
I think he sees it as a dangerous diversion from the true cause of seeking independence, and one that is likely to undermine support for the independence cause. But you are right that he gives it a lot of attention.
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That's a fine statement; as long as you also ignore the ferocity of some anti-trans activists...
They are such mirror images of each other, that sometime you get lost on which side is hating on what.
I pretty much sit in the middle on trans issues and I find the hatred of both sides very sad indeed. Ultimately these are human beings.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
Pissed off with the death threats and abuse no doubt.
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That maybe so, but I suspect much of the anti-Trans ferocity of middle aged males may well be fear of emasculation and suppressed fears over their own sexuality.
It works both ways.
I also think there's a lot of denial over people being made uncomfortable by obviously trans people, I might instictively feel a little bit of it myself if a 6ft 2in trans woman with blue hair plonked themselves down beside me on the bus. However some folk seem to be maddened by even the sight of anyone trans or transvestite, while simultaneously bellowing 'I'm no transphobe but..' La Rowling and her acolytes seem literally disgusted by anyone trans.
Happily younger people seem increasingly unbothered by such things.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
That reads as a response to something I didn't say.
You said that it was unnecessary provocative and puerile, your words.
Its neither unnecessary nor puerile to stand up for free speech when its under attack.
No. Read more carefully. I said it's puerile to invite the police to arrest her. There's nothing in what I wrote that implies she shouldn't stand up for free speech. I merely wish people as clever as JKR could make their arguments (which I agree with to some extent) without raising the temperature of the debate and encouraging division.
But you're welcome, as ever, to reply to what you think I think.
Why don't the Tories try and control legal migration? It seems like something they can easily reduce if they want to, this making illegal immigration such a problem when even if it was solved would do the square root of sod all for quality of life is puzzling.
It's the one thing I thought they would actually do after Brexit.
Legal migration is controlled, that's why its legal.
If someone has met the conditions we set in law to get a visa, then good for them, how does that affect anyone else's quality of life?
The bigger problem we have is the state being happy to take the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) but not being willing to invest in infrastructure for a growing population. That's the state's fault though, not the migrants fault, we've paid our taxes it should be used for what its their for.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I remember sitting reading that with the Oxford dictionary at my side. God knows what it was like in the original German.
Some parts seemed brilliant but in others I simply got lost in the unending classifications and sub categories and struggled to understand the differences. Hard work.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
That reads as a response to something I didn't say.
You said that it was unnecessary provocative and puerile, your words.
Its neither unnecessary nor puerile to stand up for free speech when its under attack.
No. Read more carefully. I said it's puerile to invite the police to arrest her. There's nothing in what I wrote that implies she shouldn't stand up for free speech. I merely wish people as clever as JKR could make their arguments (which I agree with to some extent) without raising the temperature of the debate and encouraging division.
But you're welcome, as ever, to reply to what you think I think.
Read what I said, people had been calling for her to be arrested when this law came into force.
Its not remotely puerile to call that. Its free speech.
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That maybe so, but I suspect much of the anti-Trans ferocity of middle aged males may well be fear of emasculation and suppressed fears over their own sexuality.
It works both ways.
I also think there's a lot of denial over people being made uncomfortable by obviously trans people, I might instictively feel a little bit of it myself if a 6ft 2in trans woman with blue hair plonked themselves down beside me on the bus. However some folk seem to be maddened by even the sight of anyone trans or transvestite, while simultaneously bellowing 'I'm no transphobe but..' La Rowling and her acolytes seem literally disgusted by anyone trans.
Happily younger people seem increasingly unbothered by such things.
I watched First Dates earlier, when the bloke said he was trans I was honestly surprised
Why don't the Tories try and control legal migration? It seems like something they can easily reduce if they want to, this making illegal immigration such a problem when even if it was solved would do the square root of sod all for quality of life is puzzling.
It's the one thing I thought they would actually do after Brexit.
Legal migration is controlled, that's why its legal.
If someone has met the conditions we set in law to get a visa, then good for them, how does that affect anyone else's quality of life?
The bigger problem we have is the state being happy to take the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) but not being willing to invest in infrastructure for a growing population. That's the state's fault though, not the migrants fault, we've paid our taxes it should be used for what its their for.
People think the numbers are too high. Why don't they bring it down to the 10s of thousands? They are capable of doing so, if they wanted to. Just seems like a more achievable thing than the boats.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
Why don't the Tories try and control legal migration? It seems like something they can easily reduce if they want to, this making illegal immigration such a problem when even if it was solved would do the square root of sod all for quality of life is puzzling.
It's the one thing I thought they would actually do after Brexit.
Legal migration is controlled, that's why its legal.
If someone has met the conditions we set in law to get a visa, then good for them, how does that affect anyone else's quality of life?
The bigger problem we have is the state being happy to take the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) but not being willing to invest in infrastructure for a growing population. That's the state's fault though, not the migrants fault, we've paid our taxes it should be used for what its their for.
People think the numbers are too high. Why don't they bring it down to the 10s of thousands? They are capable of doing so, if they wanted to. Just seems like a more achievable thing than the boats.
Who thinks that? Why should they?
Tens of thousands was not in the Tory manifesto in 2019. That was David Cameron and Theresa May's policy, which was dropped by Boris and quite rightly so in my view.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I remember sitting reading that with the Oxford dictionary at my side. God knows what it was like in the original German.
Some parts seemed brilliant but in others I simply got lost in the unending classifications and sub categories and struggled to understand the differences. Hard work.
Oh, it was equally comprehensible in English and German. And I don't speak German.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
The answer is that seemingly Bart enjoys watching people die in this conflict. It's become quite obvious on this that he is a war-monger, obsessed with killing innocent people.
Interesting Opinion commissioned by Wings over Scotland.
The bigger question being why is a website I believe dedicated to Scottish Independence so concerned with the hoo-haa around who calls themselves a woman.
Has it become a front in the SNP/Alba war?
I think it did. Most people focus on trans qua trans, but if you consider it as a political phenomenon and track its adoption by parties an interesting phenom occurs: it was excruciatingly dependent on initial conditions (as Robert whoops "Butterfly Effect" in the background). Salmond was anti-trans by inclination and as he left those that went to Alba also were. Sturgeon may or may not have been pro-trans by inclination but became so by expedience for a Green coalition and eventually by nature. Sortition took place with people following the leader and things settled. It's not permanent, and the presence of Kate Forgot-Name can provide the nucleus of a reversal if it is electorally expedient, and then things will settle again. If only a few things had gone differently an anti-trans Joanna Cherry would be FM of an anti-trans SNP, and Humza Yousaf would be the pro-trans leader of Alba. Parties are funny things.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
Razing the buildings is possible, I don't believe "destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out" is.
Why don't the Tories try and control legal migration? It seems like something they can easily reduce if they want to, this making illegal immigration such a problem when even if it was solved would do the square root of sod all for quality of life is puzzling.
It's the one thing I thought they would actually do after Brexit.
Legal migration is controlled, that's why its legal.
If someone has met the conditions we set in law to get a visa, then good for them, how does that affect anyone else's quality of life?
The bigger problem we have is the state being happy to take the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) but not being willing to invest in infrastructure for a growing population. That's the state's fault though, not the migrants fault, we've paid our taxes it should be used for what its their for.
People think the numbers are too high. Why don't they bring it down to the 10s of thousands? They are capable of doing so, if they wanted to. Just seems like a more achievable thing than the boats.
Who thinks that? Why should they?
Tens of thousands was not in the Tory manifesto in 2019. That was David Cameron and Theresa May's policy, which was dropped by Boris and quite rightly so in my view.
The public, when polled. The Tories themselves are terrified of the current numbers as reported because it appears "out of control".
I wonder why they don't reduce that by say 50,000, that would be far more of a political win than the silly Rwanda scheme.
Interesting Opinion commissioned by Wings over Scotland.
The bigger question being why is a website I believe dedicated to Scottish Independence so concerned with the hoo-haa around who calls themselves a woman.
Has it become a front in the SNP/Alba war?
I think it did. Most people focus on trans qua trans, but if you consider it as a political phenomenon and track its adoption by parties an interesting phenom occurs: it was excruciatingly dependent on initial conditions (as Robert whoops "Butterfly Effect" in the background). Salmond was anti-trans by inclination and as he left those that went to Alba also were. Sturgeon may or may not have been pro-trans by inclination but became so by expedience for a Green coalition and eventually by nature. Sortition took place with people following the leader and things settled. It's not permanent, and the presence of Kate Forgot-Name can provide the nucleus of a reversal if it is electorally expedient, and then things will settle again. If only a few things had gone differently an anti-trans Joanna Cherry would be FM of an anti-trans SNP, and Humza Yousaf would be the pro-trans leader of Alba. Parties are funny things.
I always thought Sturgeon and the SNP were far more conservative than they actually were.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
Razing the buildings is possible, I don't believe "destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out" is.
They need the ventilation systems to breath. If they didn't spill out, they'd be welcome to remain hidden, but wouldn't last very long without air.
What is utterly enraging is that 3/4 of those affected have died and still there has been no compensation, with reports coming out of government that any action is being deliberately delayed to pay for tax cuts.
Other countries have not only managed to pay compensation but also hold people accountable.
Here the most the British state can manage is a lot of hand-wringing and fuck all action.
Someone close to me is currently having treatment which involves blood transfusions. The prognosis is good even though the treatment is not easy, to put it mildly.
But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us.
And why the absolute fuck would anyone trust our authorities these days? I mean - what evidence is there that they are remotely competent or trustworthy to put in the balance with the ever-increasing evidence to the contrary?
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
The answer is that seemingly Bart enjoys watching people die in this conflict. It's become quite obvious on this that he is a war-monger, obsessed with killing innocent people.
Not at all. I want to see the fight taken to Hamas, and them destroyed, so that innocent Palestinians can have a brighter future.
I've got a balanced and reasonable view, destroy Hamas, don't destroy the future for Palestinians. Rebuild Gaza with a Marshall Plan style redevelopment and ensure that Gazans have a bright future so Hamas aren't given an opportunity to rebuild.
Being realistic, a ceasefire and returning Gaza to being an open air prison where they're barricaded and blockaded because Hamas are in charge and there's fifty percent unemployment is no future for Palestinians. Its a miserable proposal.
Suggesting there'd be an independent Palestinian state as long as Hamas exists is purely delusional.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
Yes, Obama was weak on Putin.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
But to regard support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus test of respectability while crusading against 'Putinism' looks like cynical partisan posturing.
Would a McCain administration have had a 'reset' with Putin after the invasion of Georgia? Hillary Clinton's attempts to ingratiate herself with Sergey Lavrov were a running joke on Russian comedy shows.
What looks like cynical partisan posturing is you going on about Obama, who is not standing in any current election, in order to deflect from Trump's pro-Putin position.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
That reads as a response to something I didn't say.
You said that it was unnecessary provocative and puerile, your words.
Its neither unnecessary nor puerile to stand up for free speech when its under attack.
No. Read more carefully. I said it's puerile to invite the police to arrest her. There's nothing in what I wrote that implies she shouldn't stand up for free speech. I merely wish people as clever as JKR could make their arguments (which I agree with to some extent) without raising the temperature of the debate and encouraging division.
But you're welcome, as ever, to reply to what you think I think.
Is it puerile to invite arrest?
There is a very long tradition, in the U.K. and elsewhere, of challenging laws you don’t agree with, by deliberately breaking them, getting arrested and arguing it in court.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
Razing the buildings is possible, I don't believe "destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out" is.
They need the ventilation systems to breath. If they didn't spill out, they'd be welcome to remain hidden, but wouldn't last very long without air.
Depends how the ventilation systems work and what kind of redundancy they have.
If the ventilation systems continue working after your sabotage attempts, then they'll just continue.
And of course if the ventilation systems are just temporarily disabled then they'll be restored and the tunnels used again the second you move on, which again is pointless.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I remember sitting reading that with the Oxford dictionary at my side. God knows what it was like in the original German.
Some parts seemed brilliant but in others I simply got lost in the unending classifications and sub categories and struggled to understand the differences. Hard work.
Oh, it was equally comprehensible in English and German. And I don't speak German.
Rather agree. Oddly one of the best intros to it I have come across (a tutor's recommendation decades ago) is the late Bryan Magee's book on Schopenhauer. Magee has the enthusiasm of a Kantian believer - which he was, and in a thoroughgoing dualist interpretation of it.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
Why don't the Tories try and control legal migration? It seems like something they can easily reduce if they want to, this making illegal immigration such a problem when even if it was solved would do the square root of sod all for quality of life is puzzling.
It's the one thing I thought they would actually do after Brexit.
Legal migration is controlled, that's why its legal.
If someone has met the conditions we set in law to get a visa, then good for them, how does that affect anyone else's quality of life?
The bigger problem we have is the state being happy to take the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) but not being willing to invest in infrastructure for a growing population. That's the state's fault though, not the migrants fault, we've paid our taxes it should be used for what its their for.
People think the numbers are too high. Why don't they bring it down to the 10s of thousands? They are capable of doing so, if they wanted to. Just seems like a more achievable thing than the boats.
Who thinks that? Why should they?
Tens of thousands was not in the Tory manifesto in 2019. That was David Cameron and Theresa May's policy, which was dropped by Boris and quite rightly so in my view.
The public, when polled. The Tories themselves are terrified of the current numbers as reported because it appears "out of control".
I wonder why they don't reduce that by say 50,000, that would be far more of a political win than the silly Rwanda scheme.
The public when polled tend to support each individual migrant group individually actually, even if they dislike the number in aggregate, so whom would you cut? Legal refugees from Hong Kong? Legal refugees from Ukraine? Those who meet our visa system requirements? Students?
I have no objection to migrants, if you do then that's your view and you're entitled to it, but I don't respect it.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
Her entire MO has been to be as provocative and nasty as possible. I actually agree with a lot of what she says and I think she has been treated very badly - but there is no smoke without fire.
I am sure she regrets ever wading into this row. She could just have sat it all out and been known as the writer of Harry Potter.
She has not been nasty in the slightest. You want to see the stuff thrown at her. Nor does she regret it. She said as much at the FILIA Conference I attended where she spoke.
But I would also note that one of the people named - a well known trans activist - has now chosen to call some of the people named in JK's Twitter thread "sex offenders" when they are not, about as serious a libel as you can imagine (as well as a hate crime to boot, ironically enough).
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
Also, are they personal attacks on those who "disagree with her"? In the main, those whose names she shared were guilty of offences or had been dropped from roles. Oh and India Willoughby who did actually try and get her arrested.
Which is the argument - that as opposed to the courtesy one may extend to friends or family - compelled speech on gender is a problem because it leads to unpalatable endpoints.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
Her entire MO has been to be as provocative and nasty as possible. I actually agree with a lot of what she says and I think she has been treated very badly - but there is no smoke without fire.
I am sure she regrets ever wading into this row. She could just have sat it all out and been known as the writer of Harry Potter.
She has not been nasty in the slightest. You want to see the stuff thrown at her. Nor does she regret it. She said as much at the FILIA Conference I attended where she spoke.
But I would also note that one of the people named - a well known trans activist - has now chosen to call some of the people named in JK's Twitter thread "sex offenders" when they are not, about as serious a libel as you can imagine (as well as a hate crime to boot, ironically enough).
Expensive mistake - libelling someone.
Well we strongly disagree as usual, then.
I do not disagree with the crux of what she says nor what you have said for some time - but to be honest I've not always agreed with the way you've gone about it either. That is my opinion.
I try and avoid conversing with you as it isn't productive.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
While I agree with Mill about this on the whole, at least about conclusions, I am in difficulties with his utilitarianism; and of course he assumes the universal application of a particular sort, school and tradition of thought - that of a western enlightenment. The extent to which this has been under attack in the last 70 years or so, both culturally and intellectually is remarkable. I imagine many youjbnger people in the west just don't think that way.
Mill is a good part of why I am a liberal and a Liberal Democrat.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
While I agree with Mill about this on the whole, at least about conclusions, I am in difficulties with his utilitarianism; and of course he assumes the universal application of a particular sort, school and tradition of thought - that of a western enlightenment. The extent to which this has been under attack in the last 70 years or so, both culturally and intellectually is remarkable. I imagine many youjbnger people in the west just don't think that way.
Mill is a good part of why I am a liberal and a Liberal Democrat.
If the Liberal Democrats were liberal and believers in Mill, then I'd be tempted to be one too.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
I am sure that's hilarious, but I don't really see what point is being made.
Israel introduced a ban on fuel entering Gaza because the fuel was being used to run tunnel ventilation machinery. If they didn't think that disabling such facilities was essential, why cause significant hardship for the people of Gaza by stopping them accessing fuel?
Without being anyone's 'chief strategist', I would imagine that the diesel-powered ventilation system for a huge tunnel would have a fairly unmistakable footprint and heat signature, so could be located and hit by a guided missile or drones, and as I said, even if the act is messy, the destruction of lives and property would still be reduced vs. flattening the building.
Unless both the fuel blockade and the building razing were inefficient ways of waging war being deployed deliberately because they caused maximum discomfort, distress, and perhaps death for the civilian inhabitants of Gaza, to encourage them to reside elsewhere.
Is that gauche? A more skilled strategist could perhaps opine.
This hate law is a good opportunity for the Scottish Tories I'd say - Labour is unlikely to mount a full-throated campaign against this abomination of a law, so that leaves the Tories mopping up anyone who doesn't want to live in a George Orwell book.
A further SNP outrage: prescribing puberty blockers is now illegal in England - but not in Scotland.
(A pedant writes: puberty blockers are not "illegal" in England. They are not prescribed by NHS England. No law forbids them. As has been often observed, the English look to their government and institutions for guidance and interpret such guidance as law, despite the two being conceptually different)
Indeed, puberty blockers are still being prescribed to aspiring gymnasts in the UK. But that's another story.
I've never heard of that outside the Soviet bloc, Rumania , East Germany, Russia and rumours about China. I am shocked and appalled that that is happening here.
Pushy parents and private doctors. It's more common than you think.
That's private medicine for you. Where there is demand there is a prescriber and a grey market.
There are a million taking anabolic steroids for non-medical purposes in the country.
But sure, puberty blockers being prescribed 5 times in Glasgow in a year is the real problem.
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more puberty blockers prescribed out of parental desire for sporting glory than for for body dysmorphia. (Albeit my knowledge is entirely pushy North London parents.)
Pause
Pause
How many pushy North London parents do you know who are obtaining prescriptions for puberty blockers for their pubertal children so those children can compete in sport? And when did they tell you this?
Hampstead drunken dinner party discussion. One set of parents were doing it, another talked of one of their daughter's friends.
You should contact NSPCC.
If worried about the welfare of a child, do not contact the NSPCC. That would be as big a waste of time as reporting a safeguarding breach by an inspector to OFSTED.
If there's a concern, contact the local Safeguarding of Children board, which in that case would be Camden.
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That maybe so, but I suspect much of the anti-Trans ferocity of middle aged males may well be fear of emasculation and suppressed fears over their own sexuality.
It works both ways.
I also think there's a lot of denial over people being made uncomfortable by obviously trans people, I might instictively feel a little bit of it myself if a 6ft 2in trans woman with blue hair plonked themselves down beside me on the bus. However some folk seem to be maddened by even the sight of anyone trans or transvestite, while simultaneously bellowing 'I'm no transphobe but..' La Rowling and her acolytes seem literally disgusted by anyone trans.
Happily younger people seem increasingly unbothered by such things.
I watched First Dates earlier, when the bloke said he was trans I was honestly surprised
When I was scanning the YouTubes for Cybertruck updates, I was taken aback to find that one of the presenters was trans (male-to-female). It's obvious in retrospect but I think there's a Red Queen Race going on: the faster people detect trans people, the more countermeasures they deploy. It's not your father's trans, that's for sure.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
Also, are they personal attacks on those who "disagree with her"? In the main, those whose names she shared were guilty of offences or had been dropped from roles. Oh and India Willoughby who did actually try and get her arrested.
Which is the argument - that as opposed to the courtesy one may extend to friends or family - compelled speech on gender is a problem because it leads to unpalatable endpoints.
Compelled speech on anything is a problem. Compelling people to lie is a problem. Compelling people to use the language of a belief system they do not share is a problem.
It's like forcing Jews or Muslims or atheists to accept the tenets of Christianity in how he or she sees the world and describes their own experiences, including when it conflicts with the evidence of their own eyes or their own belief systems. It is asking them to lie. This is about power. And about a lack of respect, contempt even, for those with different views.
And calling it "kindness" or "politeness" is masking that it is about forcing your views on others, on pain of, well, possibly a criminal offence or an NCHI affecting your employment or a load of abuse and so on. It is the absolute opposite of true diversity - diversity of thought.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I got close to halfway through the Critique of Pure Reason and had to give cup when it dawned on me that I was understanding close to nothing I was reading.
What is utterly enraging is that 3/4 of those affected have died and still there has been no compensation, with reports coming out of government that any action is being deliberately delayed to pay for tax cuts.
Other countries have not only managed to pay compensation but also hold people accountable.
Here the most the British state can manage is a lot of hand-wringing and fuck all action.
Someone close to me is currently having treatment which involves blood transfusions. The prognosis is good even though the treatment is not easy, to put it mildly.
But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us.
And why the absolute fuck would anyone trust our authorities these days? I mean - what evidence is there that they are remotely competent or trustworthy to put in the balance with the ever-increasing evidence to the contrary?
I agree with much of what you say here, Ms Free, but I find the following line interesting:
"But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us."
Much of medicine *is* an experiment. In my case, I had problems with both ankles in my early teens - AIUI (and we were never properly told what the problem was (*)) the peroneal tendons were not growing. One ankle, the worst effected, was operated on when I was 15. The other had growth hormone injections (into the tendon, I guess). Perhaps both were given injections - I can't remember.
Before that, the only 'treatment' had been to place my leg in a cast for months at a time, in the hope that time would settle it.
All three interventions: the casts, the operation, the injections - were experimental. It was clear that no-one knew what to do, as my problem was relatively rare. The operation was mucked up, meaning I had many more over the next decade. The growth hormones may have worked - that ankle is fine. Then again, it might have been fine anyway - the tendon might have grown of its own accord.
But the alternative to the experiments was me not walking properly again. I'm glad they experimented.
I just wish they'd kept us better informed. And that's somewhere I fear doctors still fail to this day.
(*) This annoys me as much as anything else that happened.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
Also, are they personal attacks on those who "disagree with her"? In the main, those whose names she shared were guilty of offences or had been dropped from roles. Oh and India Willoughby who did actually try and get her arrested.
Which is the argument - that as opposed to the courtesy one may extend to friends or family - compelled speech on gender is a problem because it leads to unpalatable endpoints.
Compelled speech on anything is a problem. Compelling people to lie is a problem. Compelling people to use the language of a belief system they do not share is a problem.
It's like forcing Jews or Muslims or atheists to accept the tenets of Christianity in how he or she sees the world and describes their own experiences, including when it conflicts with the evidence of their own eyes or their own belief systems. It is asking them to lie. This is about power. And about a lack of respect, contempt even, for those with different views.
And calling it "kindness" or "politeness" is masking that it is about forcing your views on others, on pain of, well, possibly a criminal offence or an NCHI affecting your employment or a load of abuse and so on. It is the absolute opposite of true diversity - diversity of thought.
The very notion of a NCHI or that the Police might be recording such, let alone them coming up on employment checks and so on, should be dystopian Orwellian nonsense, not something occurring in 21st century Britain.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I got close to halfway through the Critique of Pure Reason and had to give cup when it dawned on me that I was understanding close to nothing I was reading.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Donald Trump’s social media company lost $58 million last year. Freshly issued shares tumble
Less than a week after a flashy stock market debut, Donald Trump’s social media company is disclosing that it lost nearly $58.2 million in 2023.
Losses in 2023 for Trump Media & Technology Group — whose flagship product is Truth Social — mark a stark decline compared with the profit of $50.5 million that the former president’s company reported for 2022, according to a regulatory filing Monday.
Revenue for Trump Media topped just over $4.13 million in 2023, the SEC filing shows, although that’s up from $1.47 million in 2022.
After merging with with a blank-check company called Digital World Acquisition Corp., Trump Media began trading Tuesday on the Nasdaq under ticker symbol DJT. It’s been a volatile ride.
Trump Media’s shares soared in their first couple days of trading — surpassing $79 at one point Tuesday — but have since fallen closer to their initial offering price of $49.95. As of midday Monday, Trump Media’s stock plunged more than 23% to below $48, meaning a lot of early investors are taking a hit. . . .
SSI - Doubt that Putin & others wishing to bankroll Donald Trump, for fun AND non-fiscal profit, will give a Siberian hamster's wretched rectum about "DJT" stock price. Since their game is NOT (financial) investing but rather political money laundering.
They've also scammed an army of small investors along the way.
But I suspect there will be few on either side of the political divide expressing much sympathy for them.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
Her entire MO has been to be as provocative and nasty as possible. I actually agree with a lot of what she says and I think she has been treated very badly - but there is no smoke without fire.
I am sure she regrets ever wading into this row. She could just have sat it all out and been known as the writer of Harry Potter.
She has not been nasty in the slightest. You want to see the stuff thrown at her. Nor does she regret it. She said as much at the FILIA Conference I attended where she spoke.
But I would also note that one of the people named - a well known trans activist - has now chosen to call some of the people named in JK's Twitter thread "sex offenders" when they are not, about as serious a libel as you can imagine (as well as a hate crime to boot, ironically enough).
Expensive mistake - libelling someone.
Well we strongly disagree as usual, then.
I do not disagree with the crux of what she says nor what you have said for some time - but to be honest I've not always agreed with the way you've gone about it either. That is my opinion.
I try and avoid conversing with you as it isn't productive.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
Her entire MO has been to be as provocative and nasty as possible. I actually agree with a lot of what she says and I think she has been treated very badly - but there is no smoke without fire.
I am sure she regrets ever wading into this row. She could just have sat it all out and been known as the writer of Harry Potter.
She has not been nasty in the slightest. You want to see the stuff thrown at her. Nor does she regret it. She said as much at the FILIA Conference I attended where she spoke.
But I would also note that one of the people named - a well known trans activist - has now chosen to call some of the people named in JK's Twitter thread "sex offenders" when they are not, about as serious a libel as you can imagine (as well as a hate crime to boot, ironically enough).
Expensive mistake - libelling someone.
Well we strongly disagree as usual, then.
I do not disagree with the crux of what she says nor what you have said for some time - but to be honest I've not always agreed with the way you've gone about it either. That is my opinion.
I try and avoid conversing with you as it isn't productive.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
JS Mill - On Liberty
Yes but you've never made much effort to converse with me either. So it's very much mutual in that respect.
Anyway, I know others value your contributions so I will say no more on it. Good luck.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I remember sitting reading that with the Oxford dictionary at my side. God knows what it was like in the original German.
Some parts seemed brilliant but in others I simply got lost in the unending classifications and sub categories and struggled to understand the differences. Hard work.
Oh, it was equally comprehensible in English and German. And I don't speak German.
I have heard that German students find it easier to read an English translation as the German usage is so difficult.
Much as I like the Redfield & Wilton poll out today with the 24% Labour lead, polling appears to have taken place on Easter Sunday.
I’m wary of bank holiday polling. Not that it’s really outlier I suppose.
Always be wary. Though from the evidence of the last 48 hours in Alpe D’Huez (I’m not there this evening, I had to drive back to burgundy to receive an IKEA delivery tomorrow morning) the Brits currently out of circulation on their Easter trips are a mixture of Lib Dem remainer types - most of whom probably actually vote Labour - and ra ra students (“just pay for this one mate and we’ll sort it on Tricount later”) who’d probably like to vote Tory like their parents but can’t be seen to do so this year.
I think I spotted a potential Lancastrian Reform voter at the Kyriad on the way down too. One of those admirable family patriarchs - bald, looked like a football hooligan, but holding the grandchildren enthralled with his stories “I’m actually a ninja, and when you’re a ninja you’re always watching the corners of the rooms for potential attackers. Don’t drop your guards kids. That bloke over there. Could be another ninja. You never know”.
I do know, because the bloke over there was a Belgian. There aren’t many Belgian ninjas. But there were many Belgian cars on the autoroute. I counted a 2:1 ratio of Belgian to French cars (and a 2:1 of French to British and a 2:1 of British to Dutch).
AP (via Seattle Times) - Donald Trump’s social media company lost $58 million last year. Freshly issued shares tumble
Less than a week after a flashy stock market debut, Donald Trump’s social media company is disclosing that it lost nearly $58.2 million in 2023.
Losses in 2023 for Trump Media & Technology Group — whose flagship product is Truth Social — mark a stark decline compared with the profit of $50.5 million that the former president’s company reported for 2022, according to a regulatory filing Monday.
Revenue for Trump Media topped just over $4.13 million in 2023, the SEC filing shows, although that’s up from $1.47 million in 2022.
After merging with with a blank-check company called Digital World Acquisition Corp., Trump Media began trading Tuesday on the Nasdaq under ticker symbol DJT. It’s been a volatile ride.
Trump Media’s shares soared in their first couple days of trading — surpassing $79 at one point Tuesday — but have since fallen closer to their initial offering price of $49.95. As of midday Monday, Trump Media’s stock plunged more than 23% to below $48, meaning a lot of early investors are taking a hit. . . .
SSI - Doubt that Putin & others wishing to bankroll Donald Trump, for fun AND non-fiscal profit, will give a Siberian hamster's wretched rectum about "DJT" stock price. Since their game is NOT (financial) investing but rather political money laundering.
BiB: Eh!?
How the heck could they have reported a profit of $50.5 million on revenues of $1.47 million in 2022?
Did they have negative $52 million expenses in 2022?
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
How is it provocative at all? Seemed entirely measured and reasonable.
Given that people have been calling for her to be arrested when this authoritarian law comes into force, stepping up for free speech is something every liberal should applaud.
Free speech means nothing if you want those who say things you dislike to be arrested. Nobody should ever face being arrested for someone else disliking what was said.
Also, are they personal attacks on those who "disagree with her"? In the main, those whose names she shared were guilty of offences or had been dropped from roles. Oh and India Willoughby who did actually try and get her arrested.
Which is the argument - that as opposed to the courtesy one may extend to friends or family - compelled speech on gender is a problem because it leads to unpalatable endpoints.
Compelled speech on anything is a problem. Compelling people to lie is a problem. Compelling people to use the language of a belief system they do not share is a problem.
It's like forcing Jews or Muslims or atheists to accept the tenets of Christianity in how he or she sees the world and describes their own experiences, including when it conflicts with the evidence of their own eyes or their own belief systems. It is asking them to lie. This is about power. And about a lack of respect, contempt even, for those with different views.
And calling it "kindness" or "politeness" is masking that it is about forcing your views on others, on pain of, well, possibly a criminal offence or an NCHI affecting your employment or a load of abuse and so on. It is the absolute opposite of true diversity - diversity of thought.
The very notion of a NCHI or that the Police might be recording such, let alone them coming up on employment checks and so on, should be dystopian Orwellian nonsense, not something occurring in 21st century Britain.
It happens in England and Wales too. It is a nonsense.
FWIW I don't think the criminal law should be involved at all in preventing people feeling upset, ridiculed, insulted, disliked or hated. This is the realm of manners not for politicians or the police.
Incitement to violence should be a crime. Everything else is down to social mores. Trying to regulate these using the criminal law in this ham-fisted way is absurd and dangerous and unworkable.
The Hate Crime Act is a bad law for many reasons, one of which is that it excludes women for reasons which do not bear close examination. But it would not be a better law if women were included. The whole concept of trying to protect people from ridicule is ... well .... ridiculous.
It is cry-baby legislation passed by legislators with the IQ's of 4-year olds to coddle the tantrums of 2-year olds.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That maybe so, but I suspect much of the anti-Trans ferocity of middle aged males may well be fear of emasculation and suppressed fears over their own sexuality.
It works both ways.
I also think there's a lot of denial over people being made uncomfortable by obviously trans people, I might instictively feel a little bit of it myself if a 6ft 2in trans woman with blue hair plonked themselves down beside me on the bus. However some folk seem to be maddened by even the sight of anyone trans or transvestite, while simultaneously bellowing 'I'm no transphobe but..' La Rowling and her acolytes seem literally disgusted by anyone trans.
Happily younger people seem increasingly unbothered by such things.
I agree. I must admit to finding it a bit weird myself.
But my views on this have changed. Foxjr2s best friend has come out as Trans last year, someone I have known since childhood. My son thinks it has saved her from suicide, and certainly she seems a lot happier. Their circle of friends, male and female, seem very supportive and have taken it all in their stride. She works as a waitress in London and has been subject to a fair amount of abuse on the tube etc. Transphobic abuse is a real thing.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
The human being she is talking about is not being misogynistic. JK Rowling is saying that this person identifying as a woman is "cosplaying" (i.e. not a real thing) and the act of doing that, is misogynistic.
I think it's ghastly, provocative, unhelpful to her cause.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
I have never seen things from JK Rowling and her followers that strikes me as vile or ghastly (mind you I haven't looked and don't want to). But I do think that because they have developed a maximalist concept of gender accuracy, they're getting something wrong, which (imo) is that a person who has been through a medical diagnosis and a long transition process, the culmination of which is gender reassignment surgery, should be (imo) have the legal status of their new gender, in every case except sports competitions, where there's a strong advantage that men have despite no longer having male genitalia.
They should be recognised as their new gender because it is the kind and polite thing to do. No, they are not 'actually' a biological woman and never will be - they will only ever be an approximation of varying accuracy. But why keep saying that to a person that has obviously felt the need to go through that process?
Post-op transsexuals are very unlikely to rape someone, or enjoy flashing women in public loos. Sure there would be edge cases of this that would prove it wrong but I think it would be vanishingly rare. I think mostly they want to get on with life as their new gender. They are very different to men indulging a kink.
So that's where I think the line should be drawn, and I haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
"Fighting In Built Up Areas" is the British Army term for squads of men with guns going thru a street and clearing it of enemy combatants. They have a mock village for this purpose and training films dating back to the 70s on best practice. Apparently they favor coming in via the roof/upper window and taking the landing.
As the IDF seem to favour more explosive techniques, the term may not be applicable here.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
The human being she is talking about is not being misogynistic. JK Rowling is saying that this person identifying as a woman is "cosplaying" (i.e. not a real thing) and the act of doing that, is misogynistic.
I think it's ghastly, provocative, unhelpful to her cause.
Yes she's saying they're not the real thing, that's quite literally what she's saying. How is that ghastly?
Unless you think there's no real thing as a woman, how is it unreasonable to define the real thing?
And if you think there is no real thing as a woman, then what exactly is a trans individual identifying as, if it doesn't exist?
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I have "read" i.e. skim-read Plato's Republic. I have gathered two main things from it. 1. We do have free will (hope I don't summon Leon) because otherwise why would we do anything difficult? and 2. The ancient Greeks pulled off a PR coup by being credited for inventing Democracy. They also invented Timarchy (basically Sparta), Tyranny, Oligarchy and Aristocracy.
Yes she's saying they're not the real thing, that's quite literally what she's saying. How is that ghastly?
Unless you think there's no real thing as a woman, how is it unreasonable to define the real thing?
And if you think there is no real thing as a woman, then what exactly is a trans individual identifying as, if it doesn't exist?
Do you think it's helpful to call trans people "not real"? If you had a friend that really thought they were a man, would you tell them "you don't exist"? I would think that was pretty ghastly to say to a friend.
She may be "correct" - but it is certainly unhelpful, pointlessly provocative and just rude to say it that way. Surely you can accept that at least?
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
Is JK Rowling in the person's head? Are you in their head?
You are saying this particular individual is just making it up, "cosplaying". How do you know what they are doing? What right do you have to say what they are?
Yes she's saying they're not the real thing, that's quite literally what she's saying. How is that ghastly?
Unless you think there's no real thing as a woman, how is it unreasonable to define the real thing?
And if you think there is no real thing as a woman, then what exactly is a trans individual identifying as, if it doesn't exist?
Do you think it's helpful to call trans people "not real"? If you had a friend that really thought they were a man, would you tell them "you don't exist"? I would think that was pretty ghastly to say to a friend.
She may be "correct" - but it is certainly unhelpful, pointlessly provocative and just rude to say it that way. Surely you can accept that at least?
Trans people are real people.
Women are real women.
Of course trans people exist. That doesn't mean they're the opposite sex of what they actually are though and no its neither unhelpful or pointlessly provocative to speak the truth. Surely you can accept that at least?
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
Is JK Rowling in the person's head? Are you in their head?
You are saying this particular individual is just making it up, "cosplaying". How do you know what they are doing? What right do you have to say what they are?
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
To judge whether the comment is fair or not, you'd have to look at 'India' specifically. If India's persona leans heavily into drag, drag is a form of entertainment based on the lampooning of women, and therefore could be described as misogynistic. The comment might be supported further if the drag persona were highly sexualised, which again could be described as misogynistic. Obviously I don't know who this person is, so I can't say any of that is true.
I used to be a bit of a fan of J K Rowling - the person, not the books. However, that is changing. It strikes me that her latest output on the trans issue in relation to the new Scottish Act is unnecessarily provocative, and her invitation for the police to arrest her is puerile.
She is becoming little better than the extremists on the other side of the argument. Surely she could make her case equally forcefully but without resorting to such quite personal attacks on those who disagree with her?
Her entire MO has been to be as provocative and nasty as possible. I actually agree with a lot of what she says and I think she has been treated very badly - but there is no smoke without fire.
I am sure she regrets ever wading into this row. She could just have sat it all out and been known as the writer of Harry Potter.
She has not been nasty in the slightest. You want to see the stuff thrown at her. Nor does she regret it. She said as much at the FILIA Conference I attended where she spoke.
But I would also note that one of the people named - a well known trans activist - has now chosen to call some of the people named in JK's Twitter thread "sex offenders" when they are not, about as serious a libel as you can imagine (as well as a hate crime to boot, ironically enough).
Expensive mistake - libelling someone.
Well we strongly disagree as usual, then.
I do not disagree with the crux of what she says nor what you have said for some time - but to be honest I've not always agreed with the way you've gone about it either. That is my opinion.
I try and avoid conversing with you as it isn't productive.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
JS Mill - On Liberty
Yes but you've never made much effort to converse with me either. So it's very much mutual in that respect.
Anyway, I know others value your contributions so I will say no more on it. Good luck.
My headers are written for everyone. There are lots of people I do not respond to or engage with. Probably the vast majority of contributors in fact. I only respond when I feel I have something to say and, sometimes not even then. Increasingly, I have not been BTL very much lately because, in part, there have been some pretty unpleasant comments aimed at me. So I have chosen to spend my time elsewhere.
This forum has sharpened my feminism quite considerably, though. Others can decide how this makes them feel.
This hate law is a good opportunity for the Scottish Tories I'd say - Labour is unlikely to mount a full-throated campaign against this abomination of a law, so that leaves the Tories mopping up anyone who doesn't want to live in a George Orwell book.
A further SNP outrage: prescribing puberty blockers is now illegal in England - but not in Scotland.
(A pedant writes: puberty blockers are not "illegal" in England. They are not prescribed by NHS England. No law forbids them. As has been often observed, the English look to their government and institutions for guidance and interpret such guidance as law, despite the two being conceptually different)
Indeed, puberty blockers are still being prescribed to aspiring gymnasts in the UK. But that's another story.
I've never heard of that outside the Soviet bloc, Rumania , East Germany, Russia and rumours about China. I am shocked and appalled that that is happening here.
Pushy parents and private doctors. It's more common than you think.
That should be a striking off matter for the doctor and disqualification for the child.
How is it not child abuse? And shouldn't action be taken against the parents? After all parents who allow FGM on their daughters are prosecuted. Why should giving harmful and unnecessary drugs to your daughters be treated differently?
The rich don't grass each other up, apparently. As viewcode notes, they don't seem share that chatter with him.
Yes she's saying they're not the real thing, that's quite literally what she's saying. How is that ghastly?
Unless you think there's no real thing as a woman, how is it unreasonable to define the real thing?
And if you think there is no real thing as a woman, then what exactly is a trans individual identifying as, if it doesn't exist?
Do you think it's helpful to call trans people "not real"? If you had a friend that really thought they were a man, would you tell them "you don't exist"? I would think that was pretty ghastly to say to a friend.
She may be "correct" - but it is certainly unhelpful, pointlessly provocative and just rude to say it that way. Surely you can accept that at least?
Trans people are real people.
Women are real women.
Of course trans people exist. That doesn't mean they're the opposite sex of what they actually are though and no its neither unhelpful or pointlessly provocative to speak the truth. Surely you can accept that at least?
But then you disagree with JK Rowling, who says this individual is cosplaying.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
I am sure that's hilarious, but I don't really see what point is being made.
Israel introduced a ban on fuel entering Gaza because the fuel was being used to run tunnel ventilation machinery. If they didn't think that disabling such facilities was essential, why cause significant hardship for the people of Gaza by stopping them accessing fuel?
Without being anyone's 'chief strategist', I would imagine that the diesel-powered ventilation system for a huge tunnel would have a fairly unmistakable footprint and heat signature, so could be located and hit by a guided missile or drones, and as I said, even if the act is messy, the destruction of lives and property would still be reduced vs. flattening the building.
Unless both the fuel blockade and the building razing were inefficient ways of waging war being deployed deliberately because they caused maximum discomfort, distress, and perhaps death for the civilian inhabitants of Gaza, to encourage them to reside elsewhere.
Is that gauche? A more skilled strategist could perhaps opine.
"If they didn't think that disabling such facilities was essential, why cause significant hardship for the people of Gaza by stopping them accessing fuel?"
That is an easy one to answer. Because there are many of those in GIvernment in Israel at this time who do not believe Gaza should exist at all as a Palastinian entity. Their aim, clearly stated, is to drive the Palastinians ut and resettle Gaza as part of the Israeli homeland. Just to make sure we get the message they had a nice big conference about this last week attended by several Israeli ministers.
You choose to ignore this just as you choose to ignore the Israeli's driving Palastinians off their own land in the West Bank because it doesn't fit with your world view. Until you accept that there are sections of the Israeli establishment which have malign intent and are using the October 7th attacks as an excuse to achieve their aims you are always going to be failing to understand what is really happening in the Levant.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
Is JK Rowling in the person's head? Are you in their head?
You are saying this particular individual is just making it up, "cosplaying". How do you know what they are doing? What right do you have to say what they are?
What right: Freedom of speech.
Look it up.
She has a right to say it. I haven't said anything otherwise.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
I really am not well versed with the transgender world, and " ghastly" may be overstepping the mark. I'll caveat my next comment by explaining that I don't know the context of Rowling's assertion, but it seems to me it was written to be inflammatory. The language used " India is cosplaying a misogynistic male fantasy..." isn't language laced with love and empathy.
What is utterly enraging is that 3/4 of those affected have died and still there has been no compensation, with reports coming out of government that any action is being deliberately delayed to pay for tax cuts.
Other countries have not only managed to pay compensation but also hold people accountable.
Here the most the British state can manage is a lot of hand-wringing and fuck all action.
Someone close to me is currently having treatment which involves blood transfusions. The prognosis is good even though the treatment is not easy, to put it mildly.
But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us.
And why the absolute fuck would anyone trust our authorities these days? I mean - what evidence is there that they are remotely competent or trustworthy to put in the balance with the ever-increasing evidence to the contrary?
I agree with much of what you say here, Ms Free, but I find the following line interesting:
"But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us."
Much of medicine *is* an experiment. In my case, I had problems with both ankles in my early teens - AIUI (and we were never properly told what the problem was (*)) the peroneal tendons were not growing. One ankle, the worst effected, was operated on when I was 15. The other had growth hormone injections (into the tendon, I guess). Perhaps both were given injections - I can't remember.
Before that, the only 'treatment' had been to place my leg in a cast for months at a time, in the hope that time would settle it.
All three interventions: the casts, the operation, the injections - were experimental. It was clear that no-one knew what to do, as my problem was relatively rare. The operation was mucked up, meaning I had many more over the next decade. The growth hormones may have worked - that ankle is fine. Then again, it might have been fine anyway - the tendon might have grown of its own accord.
But the alternative to the experiments was me not walking properly again. I'm glad they experimented.
I just wish they'd kept us better informed. And that's somewhere I fear doctors still fail to this day.
(*) This annoys me as much as anything else that happened.
I remember a guy I worked with who had a severe problem with his feet. Went to see a consultant (after quite a wait of course) who listened carefully to his plight.
Then literally rubbed his hands and gleefully said "I think I'll get a paper out of this!".
It's no wonder the GPT's are getting higher patient satisfaction scores already.
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That maybe so, but I suspect much of the anti-Trans ferocity of middle aged males may well be fear of emasculation and suppressed fears over their own sexuality.
It works both ways.
I also think there's a lot of denial over people being made uncomfortable by obviously trans people, I might instictively feel a little bit of it myself if a 6ft 2in trans woman with blue hair plonked themselves down beside me on the bus. However some folk seem to be maddened by even the sight of anyone trans or transvestite, while simultaneously bellowing 'I'm no transphobe but..' La Rowling and her acolytes seem literally disgusted by anyone trans.
Happily younger people seem increasingly unbothered by such things.
I agree. I must admit to finding it a bit weird myself.
But my views on this have changed. Foxjr2s best friend has come out as Trans last year, someone I have known since childhood. My son thinks it has saved her from suicide, and certainly she seems a lot happier. Their circle of friends, male and female, seem very supportive and have taken it all in their stride. She works as a waitress in London and has been subject to a fair amount of abuse on the tube etc. Transphobic abuse is a real thing.
I had a strange transphobia / not transphobia experience many many (like 30) years ago in Oxford.
I decided to dress up in the full works, do my face, and wear a velour dress with a flashy faux-fur coat to the Oxford Union which was holding one of its periodic disco/bop events.
On the way back I got heckled quite aggressively by some students. I assumed they were mocking the cross-dressing but then I realised they were several levels more ignorant that that: they mistook the faux fur for the real thing and were telling me I was responsible for the murder of cute little critters and had blood on my hands.
Not being either a regular transvestite or a Cruella Deville I was not hugely bothered but quite reassured they I wasn’t living in some South Midlands Alabama.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
Its both. There are 2 intact Hamas battalions in Rafah. Israel wants to destroy them but they are hiding amongst the best part of a million refugees. There are undoubtedly tunnels under these hospitals and the University. The claims that there weren't have been proved false time and again. But there are also lots of highly vulnerable people on top of them and the future of a micro state to think about. There are no easy or simplistic answers to this. There just aren't.
Agree there are no easy answers. But I worry we are going to let a genocide happen because of an awful terrorist attack.
And there are some easy decisions - letting in food aid is an obvious one.
Oh I agree that Israel's hand must be forced on aid. And the UK voted for a ceasefire so it could be delivered. That was right too. But should the war be stopped with Hamas units intact? That's a lot harder.
Its not that hard: no.
The destruction of Hamas must proceed at pace, as should ensuring food reaches those who are hungry.
Stalling and starving everyone is not an alternative to destroying Hamas.
Razing every building that Hamas have built tunnels under and destroying those tunnels is entirely legitimate. If that means razing every government or public building in Gaza then that's Hamas' fault.
Could you explain why razing the buildings is preferred to destroying the ventilation systems and watching everyone spill out, then picking them off? Even if there are significant inaccuracies and resulting civilian casualties, these would surely be orders of magnitude fewer than from razing the buildings.
I am sure that's hilarious, but I don't really see what point is being made.
Israel introduced a ban on fuel entering Gaza because the fuel was being used to run tunnel ventilation machinery. If they didn't think that disabling such facilities was essential, why cause significant hardship for the people of Gaza by stopping them accessing fuel?
Without being anyone's 'chief strategist', I would imagine that the diesel-powered ventilation system for a huge tunnel would have a fairly unmistakable footprint and heat signature, so could be located and hit by a guided missile or drones, and as I said, even if the act is messy, the destruction of lives and property would still be reduced vs. flattening the building.
Unless both the fuel blockade and the building razing were inefficient ways of waging war being deployed deliberately because they caused maximum discomfort, distress, and perhaps death for the civilian inhabitants of Gaza, to encourage them to reside elsewhere.
Is that gauche? A more skilled strategist could perhaps opine.
"If they didn't think that disabling such facilities was essential, why cause significant hardship for the people of Gaza by stopping them accessing fuel?"
That is an easy one to answer. Because there are many of those in GIvernment in Israel at this time who do not believe Gaza should exist at all as a Palastinian entity. Their aim, clearly stated, is to drive the Palastinians ut and resettle Gaza as part of the Israeli homeland. Just to make sure we get the message they had a nice big conference about this last week attended by several Israeli ministers.
You choose to ignore this just as you choose to ignore the Israeli's driving Palastinians off their own land in the West Bank because it doesn't fit with your world view. Until you accept that there are sections of the Israeli establishment which have malign intent and are using the October 7th attacks as an excuse to achieve their aims you are always going to be failing to understand what is really happening in the Levant.
I haven't chosen to ignore anything - if you actually read my post, you'll find that I raise that very theory.
Yes she's saying they're not the real thing, that's quite literally what she's saying. How is that ghastly?
Unless you think there's no real thing as a woman, how is it unreasonable to define the real thing?
And if you think there is no real thing as a woman, then what exactly is a trans individual identifying as, if it doesn't exist?
Do you think it's helpful to call trans people "not real"? If you had a friend that really thought they were a man, would you tell them "you don't exist"? I would think that was pretty ghastly to say to a friend.
She may be "correct" - but it is certainly unhelpful, pointlessly provocative and just rude to say it that way. Surely you can accept that at least?
Trans people are real people.
Women are real women.
Of course trans people exist. That doesn't mean they're the opposite sex of what they actually are though and no its neither unhelpful or pointlessly provocative to speak the truth. Surely you can accept that at least?
But then you disagree with JK Rowling, who says this individual is cosplaying.
What are you talking about.
People who cosplay are real people.
There's nothing wrong with cosplaying. On World Book Day I joined my children as dressing up as a book character, since they love it so much. Doesn't make me a real Sherlock Holmes, or less of a real person.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
I think the term was used to imply that the state of being trans is a misogynist male fantasy, and that by virtue of being trans the person was a misogynist male indulging in a misogynist fantasy of being female.
IIUC gender critical thought precludes the possibility of innocent transition: that everybody who transitions is impelled by delusion or fetishism or coercion or x, where x is a bad thing. JKR cannot concieve of a good trans or a good transition and hence from that logic concluded that Willoughby was bad.
What is utterly enraging is that 3/4 of those affected have died and still there has been no compensation, with reports coming out of government that any action is being deliberately delayed to pay for tax cuts.
Other countries have not only managed to pay compensation but also hold people accountable.
Here the most the British state can manage is a lot of hand-wringing and fuck all action.
Someone close to me is currently having treatment which involves blood transfusions. The prognosis is good even though the treatment is not easy, to put it mildly.
But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us.
And why the absolute fuck would anyone trust our authorities these days? I mean - what evidence is there that they are remotely competent or trustworthy to put in the balance with the ever-increasing evidence to the contrary?
I agree with much of what you say here, Ms Free, but I find the following line interesting:
"But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us."
Much of medicine *is* an experiment. In my case, I had problems with both ankles in my early teens - AIUI (and we were never properly told what the problem was (*)) the peroneal tendons were not growing. One ankle, the worst effected, was operated on when I was 15. The other had growth hormone injections (into the tendon, I guess). Perhaps both were given injections - I can't remember.
Before that, the only 'treatment' had been to place my leg in a cast for months at a time, in the hope that time would settle it.
All three interventions: the casts, the operation, the injections - were experimental. It was clear that no-one knew what to do, as my problem was relatively rare. The operation was mucked up, meaning I had many more over the next decade. The growth hormones may have worked - that ankle is fine. Then again, it might have been fine anyway - the tendon might have grown of its own accord.
But the alternative to the experiments was me not walking properly again. I'm glad they experimented.
I just wish they'd kept us better informed. And that's somewhere I fear doctors still fail to this day.
(*) This annoys me as much as anything else that happened.
The difference is that in the blood case the authorities knew of the harm they were causing, they refused the option of the single source serum which would have avoided the problems of tainted blood and they lied to the patients.
So for my family's sake I hope that the same thing is not happening again. My trust in our government is pretty much down to homeopathic levels now, frankly.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
I do not know. But neither do you.
But neither does Rowling. She may *think* she knows what is going on in Willoughby's head, but she doesn't.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
I certainly don't know.
Unless you have had the sort of conversations with India Willoughby that I don't think you have, you don't know.
And I very much doubt that JK Rowling knows either.
Unless you take the position that trans people simply don't exist, people inside India's close personal circle and medical staff working with her are the only people who know with any degree of certainty.
(I wouldn't be surprised if there are abuses happening. And society needs to learn to process those. There's also a genuine dilemma of how to balance rights between two groups of people who have valid fears and who have both been treated badly in the past.
But otherwise we're talking about real people who are always more complicated on the inside than they seem in the outside. But it's hard to say that without being shouted down because you don't know what a man/woman is.)
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
I do not know. But neither do you.
But neither does Rowling. She may *think* she knows what is going on in Willoughby's head, but she doesn't.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
I do not know. But neither do you.
But neither does Rowling. She may *think* she knows what is going on in Willoughby's head, but she doesn't.
Reality isn't inside Willoughby's head.
Nor in yours, on precisely the same basis. TBF nor in mine, ditto ...
There's nothing wrong with cosplaying. On World Book Day I joined my children as dressing up as a book character, since they love it so much. Doesn't make me a real Sherlock Holmes, or less of a real person.
I legitimately think you are being ignorant on purpose. Let me try one more time.
A good friend of mine is a trans man. They were born female and now identify as a man.
Comments
Its neither unnecessary nor puerile to stand up for free speech when its under attack.
"How can great minds be produced in a country where the test of great minds is agreeing in the opinion of small minds?"
It's the one thing I thought they would actually do after Brexit.
Happily younger people seem increasingly unbothered by such things.
But you're welcome, as ever, to reply to what you think I think.
If someone has met the conditions we set in law to get a visa, then good for them, how does that affect anyone else's quality of life?
The bigger problem we have is the state being happy to take the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) but not being willing to invest in infrastructure for a growing population. That's the state's fault though, not the migrants fault, we've paid our taxes it should be used for what its their for.
Some parts seemed brilliant but in others I simply got lost in the unending classifications and sub categories and struggled to understand the differences. Hard work.
Its not remotely puerile to call that. Its free speech.
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Grant Shapps is planning a COVERT leadership bid
He has been hosting parties called "schnapps with shapps" 🥂
[
@theipaper
]
Tens of thousands was not in the Tory manifesto in 2019. That was David Cameron and Theresa May's policy, which was dropped by Boris and quite rightly so in my view.
I wonder why they don't reduce that by say 50,000, that would be far more of a political win than the silly Rwanda scheme.
If you - or anyone - is interested, there have been two very good radio programmes on it -
- Blood Matters: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001r7kz. Hard to hear some of the stories without weeping.
- Start The Week: Infected Blood - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001rqm1
What is utterly enraging is that 3/4 of those affected have died and still there has been no compensation, with reports coming out of government that any action is being deliberately delayed to pay for tax cuts.
Other countries have not only managed to pay compensation but also hold people accountable.
Here the most the British state can manage is a lot of hand-wringing and fuck all action.
Someone close to me is currently having treatment which involves blood transfusions. The prognosis is good even though the treatment is not easy, to put it mildly.
But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us.
And why the absolute fuck would anyone trust our authorities these days? I mean - what evidence is there that they are remotely competent or trustworthy to put in the balance with the ever-increasing evidence to the contrary?
Much as I like the Redfield & Wilton poll out today with the 24% Labour lead, polling appears to have taken place on Easter Sunday.
I’m wary of bank holiday polling. Not that it’s really outlier I suppose.
I've got a balanced and reasonable view, destroy Hamas, don't destroy the future for Palestinians. Rebuild Gaza with a Marshall Plan style redevelopment and ensure that Gazans have a bright future so Hamas aren't given an opportunity to rebuild.
Being realistic, a ceasefire and returning Gaza to being an open air prison where they're barricaded and blockaded because Hamas are in charge and there's fifty percent unemployment is no future for Palestinians. Its a miserable proposal.
Suggesting there'd be an independent Palestinian state as long as Hamas exists is purely delusional.
There is a very long tradition, in the U.K. and elsewhere, of challenging laws you don’t agree with, by deliberately breaking them, getting arrested and arguing it in court.
Today it is 24%.
Would the Tories like to defend their record?
If the ventilation systems continue working after your sabotage attempts, then they'll just continue.
And of course if the ventilation systems are just temporarily disabled then they'll be restored and the tunnels used again the second you move on, which again is pointless.
I have no objection to migrants, if you do then that's your view and you're entitled to it, but I don't respect it.
But I would also note that one of the people named - a well known trans activist - has now chosen to call some of the people named in JK's Twitter thread "sex offenders" when they are not, about as serious a libel as you can imagine (as well as a hate crime to boot, ironically enough).
Expensive mistake - libelling someone.
Which is the argument - that as opposed to the courtesy one may extend to friends or family - compelled speech on gender is a problem because it leads to unpalatable endpoints.
I do not disagree with the crux of what she says nor what you have said for some time - but to be honest I've not always agreed with the way you've gone about it either. That is my opinion.
I try and avoid conversing with you as it isn't productive.
The Tories get to act as fools for thirty days in April. Followed by 31 days in May and so on.
Israel introduced a ban on fuel entering Gaza because the fuel was being used to run tunnel ventilation machinery. If they didn't think that disabling such facilities was essential, why cause significant hardship for the people of Gaza by stopping them accessing fuel?
Without being anyone's 'chief strategist', I would imagine that the diesel-powered ventilation system for a huge tunnel would have a fairly unmistakable footprint and heat signature, so could be located and hit by a guided missile or drones, and as I said, even if the act is messy, the destruction of lives and property would still be reduced vs. flattening the building.
Unless both the fuel blockade and the building razing were inefficient ways of waging war being deployed deliberately because they caused maximum discomfort, distress, and perhaps death for the civilian inhabitants of Gaza, to encourage them to reside elsewhere.
Is that gauche? A more skilled strategist could perhaps opine.
If there's a concern, contact the local Safeguarding of Children board, which in that case would be Camden.
https://www.londonscb.gov.uk/contacts/safeguarding-contacts/
It's like forcing Jews or Muslims or atheists to accept the tenets of Christianity in how he or she sees the world and describes their own experiences, including when it conflicts with the evidence of their own eyes or their own belief systems. It is asking them to lie. This is about power. And about a lack of respect, contempt even, for those with different views.
And calling it "kindness" or "politeness" is masking that it is about forcing your views on others, on pain of, well, possibly a criminal offence or an NCHI affecting your employment or a load of abuse and so on. It is the absolute opposite of true diversity - diversity of thought.
Still on the bookshelf awaiting a future attempt!
Schnapps, Honest Bob, Cruella, Bad Enoch and a field of runners and riders including the Norfolk sheep worrier jockeying for position.
"But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us."
Much of medicine *is* an experiment. In my case, I had problems with both ankles in my early teens - AIUI (and we were never properly told what the problem was (*)) the peroneal tendons were not growing. One ankle, the worst effected, was operated on when I was 15. The other had growth hormone injections (into the tendon, I guess). Perhaps both were given injections - I can't remember.
Before that, the only 'treatment' had been to place my leg in a cast for months at a time, in the hope that time would settle it.
All three interventions: the casts, the operation, the injections - were experimental. It was clear that no-one knew what to do, as my problem was relatively rare. The operation was mucked up, meaning I had many more over the next decade. The growth hormones may have worked - that ankle is fine. Then again, it might have been fine anyway - the tendon might have grown of its own accord.
But the alternative to the experiments was me not walking properly again. I'm glad they experimented.
I just wish they'd kept us better informed. And that's somewhere I fear doctors still fail to this day.
(*) This annoys me as much as anything else that happened.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
But I suspect there will be few on either side of the political divide expressing much sympathy for them.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
JS Mill - On Liberty
Anyway, I know others value your contributions so I will say no more on it. Good luck.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
I think I spotted a potential Lancastrian Reform voter at the Kyriad on the way down too. One of those admirable family patriarchs - bald, looked like a football hooligan, but holding the grandchildren enthralled with his stories “I’m actually a ninja, and when you’re a ninja you’re always watching the corners of the rooms for potential attackers. Don’t drop your guards kids. That bloke over there. Could be another ninja. You never know”.
I do know, because the bloke over there was a Belgian. There aren’t many Belgian ninjas. But there were many Belgian cars on the autoroute. I counted a 2:1 ratio of Belgian to French cars (and a 2:1 of French to British and a 2:1 of British to Dutch).
How the heck could they have reported a profit of $50.5 million on revenues of $1.47 million in 2022?
Did they have negative $52 million expenses in 2022?
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
T-t-t-t Twenty-four.
FWIW I don't think the criminal law should be involved at all in preventing people feeling upset, ridiculed, insulted, disliked or hated. This is the realm of manners not for politicians or the police.
Incitement to violence should be a crime. Everything else is down to social mores. Trying to regulate these using the criminal law in this ham-fisted way is absurd and dangerous and unworkable.
The Hate Crime Act is a bad law for many reasons, one of which is that it excludes women for reasons which do not bear close examination. But it would not be a better law if women were included. The whole concept of trying to protect people from ridicule is ... well .... ridiculous.
It is cry-baby legislation passed by legislators with the IQ's of 4-year olds to coddle the tantrums of 2-year olds.
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
But my views on this have changed. Foxjr2s best friend has come out as Trans last year, someone I have known since childhood. My son thinks it has saved her from suicide, and certainly she seems a lot happier. Their circle of friends, male and female, seem very supportive and have taken it all in their stride. She works as a waitress in London and has been subject to a fair amount of abuse on the tube etc. Transphobic abuse is a real thing.
I think it's ghastly, provocative, unhelpful to her cause.
They should be recognised as their new gender because it is the kind and polite thing to do. No, they are not 'actually' a biological woman and never will be - they will only ever be an approximation of varying accuracy. But why keep saying that to a person that has obviously felt the need to go through that process?
Post-op transsexuals are very unlikely to rape someone, or enjoy flashing women in public loos. Sure there would be edge cases of this that would prove it wrong but I think it would be vanishingly rare. I think mostly they want to get on with life as their new gender. They are very different to men indulging a kink.
So that's where I think the line should be drawn, and I haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise.
As the IDF seem to favour more explosive techniques, the term may not be applicable here.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
Unless you think there's no real thing as a woman, how is it unreasonable to define the real thing?
And if you think there is no real thing as a woman, then what exactly is a trans individual identifying as, if it doesn't exist?
I have gathered two main things from it.
1. We do have free will (hope I don't summon Leon) because otherwise why would we do anything difficult? and
2. The ancient Greeks pulled off a PR coup by being credited for inventing Democracy.
They also invented Timarchy (basically Sparta), Tyranny, Oligarchy and Aristocracy.
She may be "correct" - but it is certainly unhelpful, pointlessly provocative and just rude to say it that way. Surely you can accept that at least?
Is she wrong?
You are saying this particular individual is just making it up, "cosplaying". How do you know what they are doing? What right do you have to say what they are?
Women are real women.
Of course trans people exist. That doesn't mean they're the opposite sex of what they actually are though and no its neither unhelpful or pointlessly provocative to speak the truth. Surely you can accept that at least?
I have reported this man for hat crime
Look it up.
Well, Trump Media & Tech Group just released the financials to SEC underpinning the $6 billion market capitalisation…
$4m revenue last calendar year
$16m operational loss
$58m net loss after further $40m interest costs….
And all built on approx “9.0m signups” for Truth Social
This forum has sharpened my feminism quite considerably, though. Others can decide how this makes them feel.
As viewcode notes, they don't seem share that chatter with him.
In the other hand, there haven't been a large number of FGM prosecutions,
https://www.cps.gov.uk/foi/2023/female-genital-mutilation-charges-and-prosecutions
That is an easy one to answer. Because there are many of those in GIvernment in Israel at this time who do not believe Gaza should exist at all as a Palastinian entity. Their aim, clearly stated, is to drive the Palastinians ut and resettle Gaza as part of the Israeli homeland. Just to make sure we get the message they had a nice big conference about this last week attended by several Israeli ministers.
You choose to ignore this just as you choose to ignore the Israeli's driving Palastinians off their own land in the West Bank because it doesn't fit with your world view. Until you accept that there are sections of the Israeli establishment which have malign intent and are using the October 7th attacks as an excuse to achieve their aims you are always going to be failing to understand what is really happening in the Levant.
I have a right to say she's offensive.
Then literally rubbed his hands and gleefully said "I think I'll get a paper out of this!".
It's no wonder the GPT's are getting higher patient satisfaction scores already.
I decided to dress up in the full works, do my face, and wear a velour dress with a flashy faux-fur coat to the Oxford Union which was holding one of its periodic disco/bop events.
On the way back I got heckled quite aggressively by some students. I assumed they were mocking the cross-dressing but then I realised they were several levels more ignorant that that: they mistook the faux fur for the real thing and were telling me I was responsible for the murder of cute little critters and had blood on my hands.
Not being either a regular transvestite or a Cruella Deville I was not hugely bothered but quite reassured they I wasn’t living in some South Midlands Alabama.
People who cosplay are real people.
There's nothing wrong with cosplaying. On World Book Day I joined my children as dressing up as a book character, since they love it so much. Doesn't make me a real Sherlock Holmes, or less of a real person.
The hat is the best bit of him.
IIUC gender critical thought precludes the possibility of innocent transition: that everybody who transitions is impelled by delusion or fetishism or coercion or x, where x is a bad thing. JKR cannot concieve of a good trans or a good transition and hence from that logic concluded that Willoughby was bad.
So for my family's sake I hope that the same thing is not happening again. My trust in our government is pretty much down to homeopathic levels now, frankly.
But neither does Rowling. She may *think* she knows what is going on in Willoughby's head, but she doesn't.
Unless you have had the sort of conversations with India Willoughby that I don't think you have, you don't know.
And I very much doubt that JK Rowling knows either.
Unless you take the position that trans people simply don't exist, people inside India's close personal circle and medical staff working with her are the only people who know with any degree of certainty.
(I wouldn't be surprised if there are abuses happening. And society needs to learn to process those. There's also a genuine dilemma of how to balance rights between two groups of people who have valid fears and who have both been treated badly in the past.
But otherwise we're talking about real people who are always more complicated on the inside than they seem in the outside. But it's hard to say that without being shouted down because you don't know what a man/woman is.)
A good friend of mine is a trans man. They were born female and now identify as a man.
Do you think they are cosplaying a man?