Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Surely the parkrun results could be published in a manner that allows them to be ordered by either females including trans or females excluding trans depending on the users preference.
Everyone does the same run, if some people believe the former or latter list is particularly important, just let them see it, and others the other one.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
I think that having an entire team of trans women would be unlikely but I don't see the problem with it. I really don't think there would be a group of male footballers in that gap between being competitive in male football and being good in female football that would pretend to be women just so they could win a community league. If someone is a trans woman and they want to play football with their friends because it's fun then why not?
» show previous quotes The better Scottish Universities did well in attracting English students willing to pay them £9k a year for courses that the SG was paying just over £5k for. Boris threatened to close that loophole but I don't think he did. The number of funded places available for Scottish student has been falling because the budget simply can't stretch to cover the cost of those who want to attend for this "free" education. Ironically, this has driven quite a lot of Scottish students south, willing to take on English fees to get a better education or a University place. One of these is my son.
But your friend is right. The likes of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews have balanced the books with ever increasing numbers of foreign students paying up to £20k a year for some courses. How the strand below that are coping is a mystery to me.
David insinuating that you have to go to England to get a decent education is pure bollox. There are brilliant universities in Scotland that are a match for anywhere in the world. Wanting to boast that you went to Oxford or Cambridge is not down to lack of good university courses in Scotland, just means you can buy a bragging place if you have lots of money.
That's not what I am saying Malcolm. I agree that Scotland has some excellent Universities. What is driving some young people south is that it is hard to get an assisted place from the SG in them because the number of assisted places is being restricted as the budget gets tighter.
Scottish Universities are also really struggling to compete because the money they receive from the SG per student is substantially less than the fees charged to students under the English system. The cream of Scottish Universities have compensated by having more foreign students and also (particularly in St Andrews and Edinburgh) having lots of English students paying the same as they would in England. But these options are not available for all or even most Universities. Their financial position is increasingly perilous.
If you are wanting to go to University it can be easier to get a place in a good English University paying the English fees (by borrowing) than getting an assisted place in Scotland. The "free" University option in Scotland seemed like a good idea but it has had negative consequences that will increase sharply if University fees go up again south of the border. Personally, I favour some form of graduate tax as a means of funding Universities.
David I do agree that unfetterd courses for free is pretty stupid. It really should eb limited to skills required courses and be available fro Technical colleges as well. If people want to do courses for a laugh then they should pay for it. It si the correct idea being very badly handled as per usual SNP practice.
I'm sure there are plenty of people in Scotland who would be happy to retrain in their 30s/40s and keep their productivity bubbling along nicely. But the cost, included opportunity cost, is just too massive - look how many millennials are still renting ffs, and loads of them have degrees already!
Some of the people I'm working with in Australia are working part time and doing technical courses, all funded by the government. Seems sensible to me after c10 years of work experience, degree or not.
The focus on undergrad degree level education is just completely out of kilter with how the economy works. Of my peers, the two richest are one who went through Opito (Oil and Gas) and another who went straight into Deloitte's school leaver scheme. I loved university but...
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
No, because that's not what dumping is. Dumping is selling below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of business (and disincentivising potential competitors from entering the market). It's not a sustainable strategy but if it's successful, that doesn't matter because you raise your prices once you dominate the market, both to cover the losses and because, once you're a near-monopoly, you can
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
I see, so dumping is running at a loss for a time in order to control a market? So essentially what Amazon, Uber and lots of other tech companies have done to become the biggest companies in the world?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
The person in the first example is just a man, so I don’t think that qualifies as a nuanced position on trans women in prison.
Yes, I agree, do you agree that the person in the second example is a woman and the line is somewhere between the two examples?
I don’t really agree that the person in the second example is a woman, no.
The first one should just be in a men’s prison, no question. The second… when I think of the crime you suggested, I’d say just let them off with a fine! But let’s say this 60 year old trans woman who’d been operated on 20 years ago was convicted of murder, and sentenced to life… I think I’d put them in a mental institution or a man’s prison.
To put my cards on the table, I think anyone who transitions, or genuinely wants to but hasn’t yet, is mentally ill.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
The person in the first example is just a man, so I don’t think that qualifies as a nuanced position on trans women in prison.
Yes, I agree, do you agree that the person in the second example is a woman and the line is somewhere between the two examples?
To put my cards on the table, I think anyone who transitions, or genuinely wants to but hasn’t yet, is mentally ill.
And that's a position - it's not one I agree with because I know people who have transitioned and they are living perfectly normal lives, they are simply not mentally ill.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
Historical prejudice against LGBTQ+ people is deeply ingrained in society and has only recently (the last 10-15 years) been deemed typically socially unacceptable. It is not clear to many LGBTQ+ people that the average person would be welcoming - and some people want to make it clear that they are welcoming. There are some environments (like education and healthcare) where this may be specifically useful - kids who are coming to terms with their gender or sexuality knowing that there are adults they can talk to, or LGBTQ+ people feeling safe to talk about their personal life with medical professionals without judgement or prejudice have tangible benefits to individuals and society at large.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Surely the parkrun results could be published in a manner that allows them to be ordered by either females including trans or females excluding trans depending on the users preference.
Everyone does the same run, if some people believe the former or latter list is particularly important, just let them see it, and others the other one.
Does anyone on pb actually do Parkruns?
No one gives a damn about the times. The courses are crap, there are dogs and babies everywhere, I started my last one halfway through a croissant.
I randomly met a cousin on one so I ran at his ludicrously slow pace. More bouncing than running. Some people walk them and get lost. The volunteers have to form search parties.
Until you've been overtaken by a 40-year old dad with one of those double running prams (two traumatised toddlers) who is SIMULTANEOUSLY dragging an obese Labrador around YOU HAVE NOT DONE PARKRUN.
So it's all down to immigration. Wrong. It's all down to the perception of immigration. One bloke, paid fifty grand to go to Rwanda, a 0.01% decrease in numbers coming by boat, net immigration down by six people because that nice family in Staines decided to make a new life in Bruges.
Expect the clarion calls to be deafening. Expect also a potential change of perception. Think about the red wall. Well they finally are doing something about immigration, what would Lab do probably open the flood gates again.
That the flood gates have been open these past ten years is immaterial. People will worry.
Immigration, immigration, and control of immigration.
Is what it's all about.
To which the response will be across all the the Red Wall, it’s way more ethnically diverse round here than it used to be even a year or so ago.
And once it’s quietly pointed out the voters who would potentially go back to the Tories will be back voting for Reform again
And you are saying that people will rejoice in the increase in diversity. Not 100% sure that is the case.
I’m saying that if the Tory party thinking claiming they will reduce migration will give them votes for 30 seconds max - as the response is that the Tories have been in power 10 years and look how many immigrants have arrived while they have been in power “stopping” immigration.
My point is a very simple one - no story the Tory party comes up with for the next election is going go stand up to scrutiny. And Labour and reform are going to be attacking from both sides while leaving few areas for the Tory party to attack them on
I was shocked - shocked I tell you - given the huge controversy over RAYNER- ELPHICKE-CURRY.
Clearly the public are suffering from false consciousness.
(BTW kudos to @Casino_Royale who to his great credit called this spot on)
A grateful nation are, as we speak, absorbing the wonderful and secure future promised under our PM's five year PLAN and will give the pollsters their heartfelt thanks shortly.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
No, because that's not what dumping is. Dumping is selling below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of business (and disincentivising potential competitors from entering the market). It's not a sustainable strategy but if it's successful, that doesn't matter because you raise your prices once you dominate the market, both to cover the losses and because, once you're a near-monopoly, you can
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
I see, so dumping is running at a loss for a time in order to control a market? So essentially what Amazon, Uber and lots of other tech companies have done to become the biggest companies in the world?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Most businesses run at a loss initially and investors and regulators should be comfortable with that if there's the expectation that as they become established they start generating profits.
I don't know enough about the finances and development of Amazon and Uber to comment - though both are operating in extremely new markets and it'll be hard to distinguish between genuine start-up costs and dumping. Also, both Amazon and Uber have outstanding product fulfilment. It's not all about price.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
No, because that's not what dumping is. Dumping is selling below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of business (and disincentivising potential competitors from entering the market). It's not a sustainable strategy but if it's successful, that doesn't matter because you raise your prices once you dominate the market, both to cover the losses and because, once you're a near-monopoly, you can
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
These are newly developing strategic industries - as to its credit, the Biden administration realises. That's the point of the massive subsidies he finally managed to persuade Congress to approve. And 'dumping' really doesn't describe what the Chinese are doing; they could sell their cars at lower prices in the west and still make a margin on them.
Ironically the Brexiteers currently running our country ought to realise that one of few possible benefits of their project might have been to copy the US, put up a tariff wall against Chinese cars, while simultaneously negotiating a manufacturing deal with one or more of the bigger Chinese manufacturers. Of course that's not going to be achievable before the next election, and they're probably 'patriotically' opposed to such an idea anyway,
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
There is a problem with fraudulent agencies - but that isn't down to the universities.
I posted yesterday about my experience at Bedford on a master course. Half we there only to gain access to the UK to work. But from the Uni perspective the students have to turn up to classes, and swipe in. So its able to say with a straight face that all x students on the course are engaged and attending classes, and hence the government can believe this is true. And yet they don't have to pass the exams, or listen in lectures etc.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
Yes. Feels like the problem is more that we haven't been matching the investment and subsidy.
Though I'm sure China could find domestic demand for its solar PV production if it was motivated by a desire to stop burning coal. So there's that.
Thinking about this a bit more. The problem is a mismatch in subsidies. In Britain the purchase has been subsidised, while in China it was the production.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Its not quite the same but I used to play in a mixed netball league in NZ. Needed at least two female players on the court. One notorious team was all male, but had players who preferred to rock the skirt look. No-one cared.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
"Nineteen EU countries demand the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes amid signs the UK's new law is already having a deterrent effect
The EU is facing demands from a host of member states for the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes. The Czech and Italian PMs are leading a 19-strong group asking Brussels to let them transfer migration procedures outside the bloc's territory. UK government sources said the move showed that 'the fundamentals of our plan are making sense to people across the world'."
Considering there have been small boat arrivals every day in the last week, totalling 876, in what way is the deterrent effect of the Rwanda plan working?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
The person in the first example is just a man, so I don’t think that qualifies as a nuanced position on trans women in prison.
Yes, I agree, do you agree that the person in the second example is a woman and the line is somewhere between the two examples?
To put my cards on the table, I think anyone who transitions, or genuinely wants to but hasn’t yet, is mentally ill.
And that's a position - it's not one I agree with because I know people who have transitioned and they are living perfectly normal lives, they are simply not mentally ill.
It's a bit more nuanced than that in DSM 5:
"The DSM–5 articulates explicitly that “gender non-conformity is not in itself a mental disorder.” The 5th edition also includes a separate “gender dysphoria in children” diagnosis and for the first time allows the diagnosis to be given to individuals with disorders of sex development (DSD). DSM–5 also includes the optional “post-transition” specifier to indicate when a particular individual’s gender transition is complete. In this “post-transition” case, the diagnosis of gender dysphoria would no longer apply but the individual may still need ongoing medical care (e.g., hormonal treatment)."
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Surely the parkrun results could be published in a manner that allows them to be ordered by either females including trans or females excluding trans depending on the users preference.
Everyone does the same run, if some people believe the former or latter list is particularly important, just let them see it, and others the other one.
Does anyone on pb actually do Parkruns?
No one gives a damn about the times. The courses are crap, there are dogs and babies everywhere, I started my last one halfway through a croissant.
I randomly met a cousin on one so I ran at his ludicrously slow pace. More bouncing than running. Some people walk them and get lost. The volunteers have to form search parties.
Until you've been overtaken by a 40-year old dad with one of those double running prams (two traumatised toddlers) who is SIMULTANEOUSLY dragging an obese Labrador around YOU HAVE NOT DONE PARKRUN.
I have never done Parkrun but I do often go cycling with mates on a Saturday morning and have to negotiate hoardes of runners in various spots around South London. They are annoying in that way that any large group of people that you are not a member of tends to be.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
It's about categorisation though - not the event.
Parkrun are an interesting example. Aiui they have recently de-emphasised competition by retiring league tables, and focus on PBs. There is also stuff about gender, which I am ignoring.
(Aside: they are now accused of discrimination by certain groups representing disabled who's disability often carries a numerical nerdism as a characteristic:
Accusations of “discrimination” have included a Scottish academic who says that the removal of numerous statistics from events pages is prejudiced against neurodiverse people and Olympians who say that women are still being unacceptably treated by allowing gender self-identification.
Difficult lines to draw with grey areas - for example they permit rollators, frame runners (case by case), pushchairs, prams and running buggies (which are afaics pushchairs with bigger wheels), but ban buggy boards and push-scooters.
But they do not allow handcycles, and I have yet to see them grapple with the implications of electric wheelchairs, e-assist all terrain wheelchairs (eg Mountain Trikes), or mobility scooters, or simple hand-pedal driven wheelchairs.
They rely on "We welcome forms of participation that are considered equivalent to walking, jogging or running" and a narrative around safety.
I'm quite interested that they do it on "we permit", which is a bit strange as all their courses are open to the public and all they provide is registration and timing. They can't stop anyone with a right to use the path from using it.
Such are the complications of running public events , or public running events.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Surely the parkrun results could be published in a manner that allows them to be ordered by either females including trans or females excluding trans depending on the users preference.
Everyone does the same run, if some people believe the former or latter list is particularly important, just let them see it, and others the other one.
Does anyone on pb actually do Parkruns?
No one gives a damn about the times. The courses are crap, there are dogs and babies everywhere, I started my last one halfway through a croissant.
I randomly met a cousin on one so I ran at his ludicrously slow pace. More bouncing than running. Some people walk them and get lost. The volunteers have to form search parties.
Until you've been overtaken by a 40-year old dad with one of those double running prams (two traumatised toddlers) who is SIMULTANEOUSLY dragging an obese Labrador around YOU HAVE NOT DONE PARKRUN.
Yeah, before requiring people to make some form of solemn declaration about their birth sex or trans status, then they should first think about setting up separate league tables for those pushing double buggies vs those carrying their kids in a sling.
The whole thing is a nonsense - people looking for things to upset themselves about. Parkrun responded by simply removing the gendered results tables altogether, and the whingers still weren't satisfied!
"Nineteen EU countries demand the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes amid signs the UK's new law is already having a deterrent effect
The EU is facing demands from a host of member states for the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes. The Czech and Italian PMs are leading a 19-strong group asking Brussels to let them transfer migration procedures outside the bloc's territory. UK government sources said the move showed that 'the fundamentals of our plan are making sense to people across the world'."
Considering there have been small boat arrivals every day in the last week, totalling 876, in what way is the deterrent effect of the Rwanda plan working?
We don't know it it is or isn't. How many would be arriving without Rwanda? We can't say.
(Although if I had to guess I'd say its not working).
As arrivals this year are the highest ever recorded it certainly is a bit of a jump to say that the deterrent effect is already working as per the Daily Mail.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
No, because that's not what dumping is. Dumping is selling below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of business (and disincentivising potential competitors from entering the market). It's not a sustainable strategy but if it's successful, that doesn't matter because you raise your prices once you dominate the market, both to cover the losses and because, once you're a near-monopoly, you can
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
I see, so dumping is running at a loss for a time in order to control a market? So essentially what Amazon, Uber and lots of other tech companies have done to become the biggest companies in the world?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Most businesses run at a loss initially and investors and regulators should be comfortable with that if there's the expectation that as they become established they start generating profits.
I don't know enough about the finances and development of Amazon and Uber to comment - though both are operating in extremely new markets and it'll be hard to distinguish between genuine start-up costs and dumping. Also, both Amazon and Uber have outstanding product fulfilment. It's not all about price.
The EV mass market market is far newer than the online retail one, or even Uber.
The reality is that the dominant western car manufacturers used their market power to try (and are still trying) to slow the transition to EVs. Tesla benefitted massively from that - but has probably grown lazy on US EV subsidies, and absence of real competition in the US.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
No, because that's not what dumping is. Dumping is selling below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of business (and disincentivising potential competitors from entering the market). It's not a sustainable strategy but if it's successful, that doesn't matter because you raise your prices once you dominate the market, both to cover the losses and because, once you're a near-monopoly, you can
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
I see, so dumping is running at a loss for a time in order to control a market? So essentially what Amazon, Uber and lots of other tech companies have done to become the biggest companies in the world?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Most businesses run at a loss initially and investors and regulators should be comfortable with that if there's the expectation that as they become established they start generating profits.
I don't know enough about the finances and development of Amazon and Uber to comment - though both are operating in extremely new markets and it'll be hard to distinguish between genuine start-up costs and dumping. Also, both Amazon and Uber have outstanding product fulfilment. It's not all about price.
So what makes something dumping, and not just a typical early run loss? And, again, if a business can afford to dump early - is that not just an advantage within the market? If a super rich person can afford to make a loss to begin with knowing that later they'll make a profit because they can corner the market - what's wrong with that in the cut throat world of a free market economy?
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
What about a Free Palestine pin badge.
What about a Cost Plus Reasonable Profit Palestine pin?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, just as allowing transwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
What about a Free Palestine pin badge.
I don't wear one of those, and I haven't seen any of my colleagues wearing one.
Lanyard badge culture is quite a thing in my Trust, effectively medals for services above and beyond. I do have some non-Trust ones, including my LCFC one and the RSPB, but nothing political.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
Yes. Feels like the problem is more that we haven't been matching the investment and subsidy.
Though I'm sure China could find domestic demand for its solar PV production if it was motivated by a desire to stop burning coal. So there's that.
Thinking about this a bit more. The problem is a mismatch in subsidies. In Britain the purchase has been subsidised, while in China it was the production.
The GATT process has fallen apart because the US, amongst others, has vetoed any appointments to the determining body for a number of years now. If a country gets a finding against them they just appeal and it goes nowhere. This means that the old rules about tariffs have fallen into desuetude to some extent as we see from the US decision on EVs today but the bigger issue is that wealthier countries have seen fit to subsidise production in a way that would once have been deemed illegal by GATT.
We have seen this pretty much across the board from China and in a massive way for chip manufacturing by the US along with the usual backhanders for aeroplane manufacturers. It is a real problem for countries already borrowed to the hilt like us because we cannot match it. Most of the EU is in the same position, even if such subsidies were legal under EU law, which they are not.
The Economist had a number of articles about this, one of which was linked to on here and that led me to reading several more. It is a concern.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, as allowing trainwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
What about a Free Palestine pin badge.
I don't wear one of those, and I haven't seen any of my colleagues wearing one.
Lanyard badge culture is quite a thing in my Trust, effectively medals for services above and beyond. I do have some non-Trust ones, including my LCFC one and the RSPB, but nothing political.
The RSPB's badge game is very strong. Corncrake for me..
Isn't it for the sports' governing bodies to determine who does what and when.
Just like a new offside rule it's up to the sport itself to sort it all out and then everyone just gets on with it.*
*actually endlessly bickers about the uselessness of the new rule...
Yes. Although a lot of sports governing bodies receive a lot of government funding, and once you're stumping up the money you tend to want a say on what is done with it.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, as allowing trainwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
Is TrainWoman a Transformer?
I must refer m'noble colleague to our resident God of Trains, one Sunil Prasannan. He has wisdom of trains and may opine.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
It's about categorisation though - not the event.
Parkrun are an interesting example. Aiui they have recently de-emphasised competition by retiring league tables, and focus on PBs.
Focusing on Political Bets? Can't see that taking off around here.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, just as allowing transwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
I now want to see a basketball match between a team of half 6'7 and half 5'0 men versus a team of all 6'0 men.
Guessing the standardised team probably need to be about 6'2 to be favourites?
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
No, because that's not what dumping is. Dumping is selling below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of business (and disincentivising potential competitors from entering the market). It's not a sustainable strategy but if it's successful, that doesn't matter because you raise your prices once you dominate the market, both to cover the losses and because, once you're a near-monopoly, you can
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
I see, so dumping is running at a loss for a time in order to control a market? So essentially what Amazon, Uber and lots of other tech companies have done to become the biggest companies in the world?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Most businesses run at a loss initially and investors and regulators should be comfortable with that if there's the expectation that as they become established they start generating profits.
I don't know enough about the finances and development of Amazon and Uber to comment - though both are operating in extremely new markets and it'll be hard to distinguish between genuine start-up costs and dumping. Also, both Amazon and Uber have outstanding product fulfilment. It's not all about price.
So what makes something dumping, and not just a typical early run loss? And, again, if a business can afford to dump early - is that not just an advantage within the market? If a super rich person can afford to make a loss to begin with knowing that later they'll make a profit because they can corner the market - what's wrong with that in the cut throat world of a free market economy?
Well in this particular case, you could make a very strong argument about Chinese subsidies - which over the last decade dwarf anything the US is doing even now (though note Biden wanted a far larger green subsidy bill than he managed to get the Congress).
But China would argue back that they also get criticised for not doing enough to reduce their CO2 emissions, and that massive battery, solar panel and EV manufacturing subsidies were absolutely vital in creating a renewables based economy - which is absolutely true.
As I said upthread, the west ought to have, as we argued about at the time, have done exactly the same. Have any PBers yet admitted they were wrong ?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, as allowing trainwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
Is TrainWoman a Transformer?
I must refer m'noble colleague to our resident God of Trains, one Sunil Prasannan. He has wisdom of trains and may opine.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, just as allowing transwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
So would you have a problem with a mixed gender 5ft basketball league? I (a 6ft 4 cis male) played in my workplaces mixed netball league - as did many other cismen; we were often thoroughly outplayed by ciswomen who were just better players than us. Is that a problem?
If you're talking about a friendly kick around / toss around game - the issue isn't fairness, because it's just a laugh. If you're talking about the most elite levels of sports - the issue also isn't fairness, because the very point is to find people who are uniquely talented due to biology and training to outperform other people. The issue is a societal undervaluing of women in sports - which is underpinned by the misogynistic view that women's sports is somehow lesser than men's sports because men are just naturally faster, stronger, fitter, etc. Which is also the underpinning argument for why transwomen shouldn't be in sports (because the people making the argument see transwomen as men). Maybe in tackling that we would tackle the issue of whether there is fair representation and participation of women in sports.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
You know we've hit rock fucking bottom when Shappsie is the voice of reason.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, as allowing trainwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
Is TrainWoman a Transformer?
I must refer m'noble colleague to our resident God of Trains, one Sunil Prasannan. He has wisdom of trains and may opine.
Thou heretic. There is One True God. And He is a Jealous God.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
To be clear: IMV trans people exist. If you've lived as a woman for years, and had all the ops, then as far as I'm concerned you're a woman. .
Some do, most don’t.
As a domestic abuse survivor Rowling is understandably concerned about men who seek access to women’s spaces. Not all of them “just want to get on with their lives”.
In particular where women are vulnerable - prison (most female prisoners are in for non violent crime, unlike men, and trans women prisoners have male, not female offending profiles), rape crisis centres, hospital wards and so on.
Gender ideology is a belief system - which people are perfectly entitled to believe in. People are also entitled not to believe it and resist its imposition as a superior criterion to “sex”.
As someone who has seen trans people bullied and/or belittled, both in public and work, I am understandably concerned that trans people are treated with dignity and respect. I also want women treated with dignity and respect. And men. And children. *Everyone* deserves dignity and respect.
*Your* TERF ideology is a belief system. You are perfectly entitled to believe in it. People are also entitled to not believe it, and resist the temptation to make trans people the latest victims of a crazed culture.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, just as allowing transwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
I now want to see a basketball match between a team of half 6'7 and half 5'0 men versus a team of all 6'0 men.
Guessing the standardised team probably need to be about 6'2 to be favourites?
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
What about a Free Palestine pin badge.
I don't wear one of those, and I haven't seen any of my colleagues wearing one.
Lanyard badge culture is quite a thing in my Trust, effectively medals for services above and beyond. I do have some non-Trust ones, including my LCFC one and the RSPB, but nothing political.
I don't comprehend that. What is the point of using an employment id card for virtue signalling or expressing tribal loyalty? It's a can of worms.
I'd put allowing it in the category of really dumb things for a management team to do, and not something I would want in my organisational culture.
Perhaps the original decision to include *anything* non job-related was the start of the rot, and needs to be reversed?
I have not addressed the different point about flagging particular skills relating to particular patient-groups, such as particular medical conditions or particular specialist skills held by staff eg support skills for say abuse victims or neuro-diverse patients.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Some spaces are so sensitive - women's refuges, for example - that you *do* need to make it clear that it is single-sex, absolutely, irrespective of a person's preferred gender identity. But in general, treating people as individuals is the sensible thing.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
The DUP's Big Gav seems determined to have an 'I told you so' moment at the expense of the government:
"The issues that were elucidated yesterday by the high court in Belfast were fairly and thoroughly explored in this House, and in the other place, during both the passage of the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda act as well.
When I and my colleagues raised these concerns here in parliament, we were told by the government we were wrong. And, yet, the high court yesterday in Belfast said we were right."
It's a hell of a mess. Tom Pursglove for the govt was basically stalling for time - it's clear that they've been blindsided by the judgment and don't have a clear answer ready.
I wonder if this might make an early election more likely? It might be less risky for the govt to blame the lack of Rwanda flights on the ongoing appeal, rather than have to deal with the fallout if the appeal fails.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I appreciate 'virtue signalling' is a term of abuse or at least derision but I'd rather work with a virtuous person, whether they signal it or not, than with someone without virtue.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Have they not got a Slaanesh one to combine the two threads of discussion?
When they worked out that a lot of their custom came from the mothers of young boys, they became a bit embarrassed of Slaanesh. Nurgle is apparently safer ground and more relatable.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Some spaces are so sensitive - women's refuges, for example - that you *do* need to make it clear that it is single-sex, absolutely, irrespective of a person's preferred gender identity. But in general, treating people as individuals is the sensible thing.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
Do you have any credible evidence that allowing transwomen into single sex spaces allows abusers free rein to do more abuse? Especially considering that self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever and is the norm in many other countries - we should have a wealth of data on the issue?
And I don’t think you take the othering of transpeople and the current moral panic surround them seriously. But if you don’t think I’m a sincere actor, what’s the point in discussing further?
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I appreciate 'virtue signalling' is a term of abuse or at least derision but I'd rather work with a virtuous person, whether they signal it or not, than with someone without virtue.
Fair enough, but the correlation between "virtue signaller" and "virtuous person" is roughly zero.
"Nineteen EU countries demand the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes amid signs the UK's new law is already having a deterrent effect
The EU is facing demands from a host of member states for the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes. The Czech and Italian PMs are leading a 19-strong group asking Brussels to let them transfer migration procedures outside the bloc's territory. UK government sources said the move showed that 'the fundamentals of our plan are making sense to people across the world'."
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Some spaces are so sensitive - women's refuges, for example - that you *do* need to make it clear that it is single-sex, absolutely, irrespective of a person's preferred gender identity. But in general, treating people as individuals is the sensible thing.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
Do you have any credible evidence that allowing transwomen into single sex spaces allows abusers free rein to do more abuse? Especially considering that self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever and is the norm in many other countries - we should have a wealth of data on the issue?
And I don’t think you take the othering of transpeople and the current moral panic surround them seriously. But if you don’t think I’m a sincere actor, what’s the point in discussing further?
When you say that "self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever" do you think that traditionally, someone who didn't 'pass' would have had no problem walking into a female changing room?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
The 6ft 7 men would never be in the same basketball league as the 5ft men, and the 5ft team wouldn’t organise a friendly against the 6ft 7ers so it would almost certainly never happen. If they were put in the same league, it would make a mockery of any supposed fairness, just as allowing transwomen to participate in natural women’s competitions does
So would you have a problem with a mixed gender 5ft basketball league? I (a 6ft 4 cis male) played in my workplaces mixed netball league - as did many other cismen; we were often thoroughly outplayed by ciswomen who were just better players than us. Is that a problem?
If you're talking about a friendly kick around / toss around game - the issue isn't fairness, because it's just a laugh. If you're talking about the most elite levels of sports - the issue also isn't fairness, because the very point is to find people who are uniquely talented due to biology and training to outperform other people. The issue is a societal undervaluing of women in sports - which is underpinned by the misogynistic view that women's sports is somehow lesser than men's sports because men are just naturally faster, stronger, fitter, etc. Which is also the underpinning argument for why transwomen shouldn't be in sports (because the people making the argument see transwomen as men). Maybe in tackling that we would tackle the issue of whether there is fair representation and participation of women in sports.
"If you're talking about a friendly kick around / toss around game - the issue isn't fairness, because it's just a laugh" - Yes, and if people want to play they do, and if they don't they don't. Your example of men vs Women in Netball is the same as this. It's easier to accept when you are the one with the biological advantage, but just crap at the sport though. When it's real women vs trans, both of whom have trained to be at a decent level, that is completely different, and that is the issue that most people talk of when they discuss the fairness aspect. If my girlfriend, who is 5ft 2 and 8st something, beats me (6ft and 12st 4) at a sport I have never played but she has trained for years at, it's not the same as me beating her at lifting weights or sprinting
"The issue is a societal undervaluing of women in sports - which is underpinned by the misogynistic view that women's sports is somehow lesser than men's sports because men are just naturally faster, stronger, fitter, etc. Which is also the underpinning argument for why transwomen shouldn't be in sports (because the people making the argument see transwomen as men). Maybe in tackling that we would tackle the issue of whether there is fair representation and participation of women in sports" - that is nonsense
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Have they not got a Slaanesh one to combine the two threads of discussion?
When they worked out that a lot of their custom came from the mothers of young boys, they became a bit embarrassed of Slaanesh. Nurgle is apparently safer ground and more relatable.
Back in the day when I played 40K we did have a player who seemed to model himself on a Beast of Nurgle. But that's a completely different story.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
I can't imagine noticing let alone caring what someone's lanyard might or might not be signalling.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
I can't imagine noticing let alone caring what someone's lanyard might or might not be signalling.
To me it would be signalling they work for a corporate which has a desire to be seen as woke.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Surely the parkrun results could be published in a manner that allows them to be ordered by either females including trans or females excluding trans depending on the users preference.
Everyone does the same run, if some people believe the former or latter list is particularly important, just let them see it, and others the other one.
The Telegraph article I linked has some detailed commentary and vox-ops on that, from the side especially of those motivated by stats and league tables.
But part of the Telegraph agenda will be some modest shit-stirring.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
I can't imagine noticing let alone caring what someone's lanyard might or might not be signalling.
Someone with a BNP lanyard at he bar strikes up conversation about the weather and you just crack on as usual? Oh to be so broadminded
I really, really wish colleagues wouldn’t post fuzzy pictures.
Incidentally, we seem to have lost two blue-tit chicks overnight. They were very active in the warm weather of the last couple of days but they’ve quietened down today.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I appreciate 'virtue signalling' is a term of abuse or at least derision but I'd rather work with a virtuous person, whether they signal it or not, than with someone without virtue.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Some spaces are so sensitive - women's refuges, for example - that you *do* need to make it clear that it is single-sex, absolutely, irrespective of a person's preferred gender identity. But in general, treating people as individuals is the sensible thing.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
Do you have any credible evidence that allowing transwomen into single sex spaces allows abusers free rein to do more abuse? Especially considering that self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever and is the norm in many other countries - we should have a wealth of data on the issue?
And I don’t think you take the othering of transpeople and the current moral panic surround them seriously. But if you don’t think I’m a sincere actor, what’s the point in discussing further?
When you say that "self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever" do you think that traditionally, someone who didn't 'pass' would have had no problem walking into a female changing room?
I don’t know - I think it probably depending on how they didn’t “pass”. But I think policing “passing” is bad because - as I’ve discussed here before - there are many more ciswomen who don’t “pass” (despite being cis) then transwomen (in numbers, if not percentage wise). Butch cislesbians, ciswomen with short hair cuts, ciswomen who aren’t traditionally attractive; all of these ciswomen are at the risk of not “passing” if policing increases (and we have seen examples of this). Hell - one of my great aunts (post menopausal) had a small beard she never bothered to shave - in the current environment would she “pass”?
In the past I assume most people would just leave people be as long as they weren’t causing a problem; it’s only now that there is this moral panic that people are policing the issue.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
What about a Free Palestine pin badge.
I don't wear one of those, and I haven't seen any of my colleagues wearing one.
Lanyard badge culture is quite a thing in my Trust, effectively medals for services above and beyond. I do have some non-Trust ones, including my LCFC one and the RSPB, but nothing political.
I don't comprehend that. What is the point of using an employment id card for virtue signalling or expressing tribal loyalty? It's a can of worms.
I'd put allowing it in the category of really dumb things for a management team to do, and not something I would want in my organisational culture.
Perhaps the original decision to include *anything* non job-related was the start of the rot, and needs to be reversed?
I have not addressed the different point about flagging particular skills relating to particular patient-groups, such as particular medical conditions or particular specialist skills held by staff eg support skills for say abuse victims or neuro-diverse patients.
My NHS rainbow pin badge was Trust issued. Inclusion is my Trust's policy.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
I can't imagine noticing let alone caring what someone's lanyard might or might not be signalling.
To me it would be signalling they work for a corporate which has a desire to be seen as woke.
And so the definition of woke continues to spread and metastasise, so that any corporate even acknowledging the diversity of its own employee base gets the dreaded moniker. Until the word loses all meaning. Like the way Americans bandy about "socialist" and "fascist".
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
I can't imagine noticing let alone caring what someone's lanyard might or might not be signalling.
To me it would be signalling they work for a corporate which has a desire to be seen as woke commited to equality, diversity and inclusion.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
Yes. Feels like the problem is more that we haven't been matching the investment and subsidy.
Though I'm sure China could find domestic demand for its solar PV production if it was motivated by a desire to stop burning coal. So there's that.
Thinking about this a bit more. The problem is a mismatch in subsidies. In Britain the purchase has been subsidised, while in China it was the production.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
I can't imagine noticing let alone caring what someone's lanyard might or might not be signalling.
To me it would be signalling they work for a corporate which has a desire to be seen as woke.
And so the definition of woke continues to spread and metastasise, so that any corporate even acknowledging the diversity of its own employee base gets the dreaded moniker. Until the word loses all meaning. Like the way Americans bandy about "socialist" and "fascist".
But even if it is “virtue signalling” to wear a rainbow lanyard - why is that a problem? The virtue they are signalling is that they support LGBTQ+ people - a minority group that has typically been oppressed legally and socially. Making it clear that you support people being openly LGBTQ+ is surely a virtue we want to signal, no?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Some spaces are so sensitive - women's refuges, for example - that you *do* need to make it clear that it is single-sex, absolutely, irrespective of a person's preferred gender identity. But in general, treating people as individuals is the sensible thing.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
Do you have any credible evidence that allowing transwomen into single sex spaces allows abusers free rein to do more abuse? Especially considering that self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever and is the norm in many other countries - we should have a wealth of data on the issue?
And I don’t think you take the othering of transpeople and the current moral panic surround them seriously. But if you don’t think I’m a sincere actor, what’s the point in discussing further?
When you say that "self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever" do you think that traditionally, someone who didn't 'pass' would have had no problem walking into a female changing room?
I don’t know - I think it probably depending on how they didn’t “pass”. But I think policing “passing” is bad because - as I’ve discussed here before - there are many more ciswomen who don’t “pass” (despite being cis) then transwomen (in numbers, if not percentage wise). Butch cislesbians, ciswomen with short hair cuts, ciswomen who aren’t traditionally attractive; all of these ciswomen are at the risk of not “passing” if policing increases (and we have seen examples of this). Hell - one of my great aunts (post menopausal) had a small beard she never bothered to shave - in the current environment would she “pass”?
In the past I assume most people would just leave people be as long as they weren’t causing a problem; it’s only now that there is this moral panic that people are policing the issue.
IOW, 'trans people are fine, if they're invisible'.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
Would it be fair for a team of 6ft 7 men to compete against a team of 5ft men in a basketball game? Sports is inherently unfair. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what "fairness in sports" means and if gender based segregation is helpful in dealing with it. If the argument is, for example, that the social expectation of women as the "weaker sex" has led to reduced participation in sports by women, then I agree, that's a problem and should be tackled - with investment and teaching against the notion of gender based stereotypes like that. But that doesn't demand gender segregated sports - we could look at weight classes or (as the above example with basketball) height classes, or other shared characteristics that likely impact performance more than gender.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
How many weight classes do you propose? How long wold the Olympics last? Do you think women boxers should compete against men in the same weight classes? If a female boxer of the same weight boxed against a male boxer of the same weight it would end this debate.
You make a lot of these assertions and when you finally post the evidence it doesn't support them. Like when you said that tennis became segregated when women started beating men. When all the "evidence" you posted did was show that women played the sport.
Sex segregated sports WORKS for most people. There is no need to change it. It helps no-one and would harm a significant number.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
What's the reason for wearing a rainbow lanyard?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
I don't have a Rainbow Lanyard (mine is from Diabetes UK) but do have a rainbow flag badge for it, which I wear alongside a number of others. It was officially issued by my Trust as part of a campaign to encourage inclusion of marginalised groups in mainstream health care.
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
I'm not sure - I feel like the rainbow is a bit like the poppy, it's non-political for those that wear it because they think their position is completely uncontroversial and opposed only by extremists. But both are, like a lot of little things a political statement.
I tend to agree. If I came across someone wearing one I would note it but almost certainly not comment and I would be just a little more wary about certain topics. Is that ideal in a professional you are dealing with? I would say not but I wouldn't be upset about it, just cautious.
I can't imagine noticing let alone caring what someone's lanyard might or might not be signalling.
Someone with a BNP lanyard at he bar strikes up conversation about the weather and you just crack on as usual? Oh to be so broadminded
I've chatted happily with many people wearing a BNP lanyard!
Can't help feeling that we have not moved on as much as we like to think. Going from public stocks where people can throw rotten veg at you was surely no worse than this.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Some spaces are so sensitive - women's refuges, for example - that you *do* need to make it clear that it is single-sex, absolutely, irrespective of a person's preferred gender identity. But in general, treating people as individuals is the sensible thing.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
Do you have any credible evidence that allowing transwomen into single sex spaces allows abusers free rein to do more abuse? Especially considering that self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever and is the norm in many other countries - we should have a wealth of data on the issue?
And I don’t think you take the othering of transpeople and the current moral panic surround them seriously. But if you don’t think I’m a sincere actor, what’s the point in discussing further?
When you say that "self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever" do you think that traditionally, someone who didn't 'pass' would have had no problem walking into a female changing room?
I don’t know - I think it probably depending on how they didn’t “pass”. But I think policing “passing” is bad because - as I’ve discussed here before - there are many more ciswomen who don’t “pass” (despite being cis) then transwomen (in numbers, if not percentage wise). Butch cislesbians, ciswomen with short hair cuts, ciswomen who aren’t traditionally attractive; all of these ciswomen are at the risk of not “passing” if policing increases (and we have seen examples of this). Hell - one of my great aunts (post menopausal) had a small beard she never bothered to shave - in the current environment would she “pass”?
In the past I assume most people would just leave people be as long as they weren’t causing a problem; it’s only now that there is this moral panic that people are policing the issue.
IOW, 'trans people are fine, if they're invisible'.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
That's completely missing the point, whether deliberately or not.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
So let's talk about how to reduce abusive behaviour and abuse perpetrated by cismen (the group most likely to commit abuse against ciswomen). Lots of otherwise benign things can be abused by abusers (take single fathers taking their young daughter into the men's loos when she is young - something my dad had to do with my sister after my mum died until she was like 6ish and felt able to go into the women's loos alone). If we want single sex loos should all single parents be banned from taking their kids not of the same gender into a public toilet when they're young because it could, instead, be a predator pretending to be a single parent? No, that's ridiculous. Instead someone would typically rely on the behaviour of the child in that situation - do they look comfortable with the person, are they reacting normally, etc. etc. - and challenge it if it seemed atypical. In a situation where transwomen are sharing spaces with ciswomen if someone turns up and seems to be acting in the manner of an abuser or is a concern - you deal with that as an individual issue. You don't need to take a blanket position of no transwomen in those spaces.
Some spaces are so sensitive - women's refuges, for example - that you *do* need to make it clear that it is single-sex, absolutely, irrespective of a person's preferred gender identity. But in general, treating people as individuals is the sensible thing.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
Do you have any credible evidence that allowing transwomen into single sex spaces allows abusers free rein to do more abuse? Especially considering that self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever and is the norm in many other countries - we should have a wealth of data on the issue?
And I don’t think you take the othering of transpeople and the current moral panic surround them seriously. But if you don’t think I’m a sincere actor, what’s the point in discussing further?
When you say that "self ID has been the norm in the UK basically forever" do you think that traditionally, someone who didn't 'pass' would have had no problem walking into a female changing room?
I don’t know - I think it probably depending on how they didn’t “pass”. But I think policing “passing” is bad because - as I’ve discussed here before - there are many more ciswomen who don’t “pass” (despite being cis) then transwomen (in numbers, if not percentage wise). Butch cislesbians, ciswomen with short hair cuts, ciswomen who aren’t traditionally attractive; all of these ciswomen are at the risk of not “passing” if policing increases (and we have seen examples of this). Hell - one of my great aunts (post menopausal) had a small beard she never bothered to shave - in the current environment would she “pass”?
In the past I assume most people would just leave people be as long as they weren’t causing a problem; it’s only now that there is this moral panic that people are policing the issue.
IOW, 'trans people are fine, if they're invisible'.
I mean - that’s not what I was trying to say. I think the desire to make sure trans people do “pass” is a demand for them to be invisible. Which is another reason why policing “passing” is bad. I think for most people it’s easy to imagine a masculine ciswoman who maybe wouldn’t “pass” and a feminine transwoman who would. We should be able to accept a world where both those people are clearly women.
Comments
Everyone does the same run, if some people believe the former or latter list is particularly important, just let them see it, and others the other one.
And all this stuff about the "obvious advantage of people who have gone through male puberty" is questionable - and I have shared some of the research that questions that assumption. If transwomen are at such an advantage - why are all the examples of transwomen overperforming their peers in relatively unimportant sporting competitions?
It's at least pointless virtue signalling
Some of the people I'm working with in Australia are working part time and doing technical courses, all funded by the government. Seems sensible to me after c10 years of work experience, degree or not.
The focus on undergrad degree level education is just completely out of kilter with how the economy works. Of my peers, the two richest are one who went through Opito (Oil and Gas) and another who went straight into Deloitte's school leaver scheme. I loved university but...
The first one should just be in a men’s prison, no question. The second… when I think of the crime you suggested, I’d say just let them off with a fine! But let’s say this 60 year old trans woman who’d been operated on 20 years ago was convicted of murder, and sentenced to life… I think I’d put them in a mental institution or a man’s prison.
To put my cards on the table, I think anyone who transitions, or genuinely wants to but hasn’t yet, is mentally ill.
It's not about trans-people living their life in peace and the rights of women. It's about (amongst other things but this one, I'd suggest, is prime), the ability of abusers to benefit from rights granted to trans-people so as to enable them to abuse.
Simply asserting something and closing your eyes and mind to the possibility of an alternative is no way to set policy. Reality will intrude. See the Post Office for details.
No one gives a damn about the times. The courses are crap, there are dogs and babies everywhere, I started my last one halfway through a croissant.
I randomly met a cousin on one so I ran at his ludicrously slow pace. More bouncing than running. Some people walk them and get lost. The volunteers have to form search parties.
Until you've been overtaken by a 40-year old dad with one of those double running prams (two traumatised toddlers) who is SIMULTANEOUSLY dragging an obese Labrador around YOU HAVE NOT DONE PARKRUN.
My point is a very simple one - no story the Tory party comes up with for the next election is going go stand up to scrutiny. And Labour and reform are going to be attacking from both sides while leaving few areas for the Tory party to attack them on
I don't know enough about the finances and development of Amazon and Uber to comment - though both are operating in extremely new markets and it'll be hard to distinguish between genuine start-up costs and dumping. Also, both Amazon and Uber have outstanding product fulfilment. It's not all about price.
And 'dumping' really doesn't describe what the Chinese are doing; they could sell their cars at lower prices in the west and still make a margin on them.
Ironically the Brexiteers currently running our country ought to realise that one of few possible benefits of their project might have been to copy the US, put up a tariff wall against Chinese cars, while simultaneously negotiating a manufacturing deal with one or more of the bigger Chinese manufacturers.
Of course that's not going to be achievable before the next election, and they're probably 'patriotically' opposed to such an idea anyway,
I wouldn't wear political badges (such as the LD bird) but the rainbow flag is not political.
Suppose the difference is that 1997 was four and a half years after the ERM debacle where-as we're less than two years after TRUSS...
(Although if I had to guess I'd say its not working).
"The DSM–5 articulates explicitly that “gender non-conformity is not in itself a mental disorder.” The 5th edition also includes a separate “gender dysphoria in children” diagnosis and for the first time allows the diagnosis to be given to individuals with disorders of sex development (DSD). DSM–5 also includes the optional “post-transition” specifier to indicate when a particular individual’s gender transition is complete. In this “post-transition” case, the diagnosis of gender dysphoria would no longer apply but the individual may still need ongoing medical care (e.g., hormonal treatment)."
https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis#:~:text=With the publication of DSM–5 in 2013, “gender,, medical, and surgical treatments)
So Gender Incongruence is recognised as a cause of distress, but also that this may resolve with transitioning.
Parkrun are an interesting example. Aiui they have recently de-emphasised competition by retiring league tables, and focus on PBs. There is also stuff about gender, which I am ignoring.
(Aside: they are now accused of discrimination by certain groups representing disabled who's disability often carries a numerical nerdism as a characteristic:
Accusations of “discrimination” have included a Scottish academic who says that the removal of numerous statistics from events pages is prejudiced against neurodiverse people and Olympians who say that women are still being unacceptably treated by allowing gender self-identification.
Photo of demonstrator demanding "stats" https://archive.ph/lvJYd)
Difficult lines to draw with grey areas - for example they permit rollators, frame runners (case by case), pushchairs, prams and running buggies (which are afaics pushchairs with bigger wheels), but ban buggy boards and push-scooters.
But they do not allow handcycles, and I have yet to see them grapple with the implications of electric wheelchairs, e-assist all terrain wheelchairs (eg Mountain Trikes), or mobility scooters, or simple hand-pedal driven wheelchairs.
They rely on "We welcome forms of participation that are considered equivalent to walking, jogging or running" and a narrative around safety.
I'm quite interested that they do it on "we permit", which is a bit strange as all their courses are open to the public and all they provide is registration and timing. They can't stop anyone with a right to use the path from using it.
Such are the complications of running public events
The whole thing is a nonsense - people looking for things to upset themselves about. Parkrun responded by simply removing the gendered results tables altogether, and the whingers still weren't satisfied!
And no, it's not all about price.
https://insideevs.com/features/719015/china-is-ahead-of-west/
The reality is that the dominant western car manufacturers used their market power to try (and are still trying) to slow the transition to EVs. Tesla benefitted massively from that - but has probably grown lazy on US EV subsidies, and absence of real competition in the US.
Lanyard badge culture is quite a thing in my Trust, effectively medals for services above and beyond. I do have some non-Trust ones, including my LCFC one and the RSPB, but nothing political.
This means that the old rules about tariffs have fallen into desuetude to some extent as we see from the US decision on EVs today but the bigger issue is that wealthier countries have seen fit to subsidise production in a way that would once have been deemed illegal by GATT.
We have seen this pretty much across the board from China and in a massive way for chip manufacturing by the US along with the usual backhanders for aeroplane manufacturers. It is a real problem for countries already borrowed to the hilt like us because we cannot match it. Most of the EU is in the same position, even if such subsidies were legal under EU law, which they are not.
The Economist had a number of articles about this, one of which was linked to on here and that led me to reading several more. It is a concern.
https://thekoyostore.com/products/warhammer-40-000-age-of-sigma-lanyeard-og-nurgling-pin
https://twitter.com/ShouldHaveCat/status/1788030652643782740
The next step is obviously cat-Daleks, but I will leave that as an exercise for the reader
Guessing the standardised team probably need to be about 6'2 to be favourites?
But China would argue back that they also get criticised for not doing enough to reduce their CO2 emissions, and that massive battery, solar panel and EV manufacturing subsidies were absolutely vital in creating a renewables based economy - which is absolutely true.
As I said upthread, the west ought to have, as we argued about at the time, have done exactly the same.
Have any PBers yet admitted they were wrong ?
If you're talking about a friendly kick around / toss around game - the issue isn't fairness, because it's just a laugh. If you're talking about the most elite levels of sports - the issue also isn't fairness, because the very point is to find people who are uniquely talented due to biology and training to outperform other people. The issue is a societal undervaluing of women in sports - which is underpinned by the misogynistic view that women's sports is somehow lesser than men's sports because men are just naturally faster, stronger, fitter, etc. Which is also the underpinning argument for why transwomen shouldn't be in sports (because the people making the argument see transwomen as men). Maybe in tackling that we would tackle the issue of whether there is fair representation and participation of women in sports.
https://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Support-Palestinian-Outdoor-Decoration/dp/B0CL9CNZ8G
(Link in case of picture problems:https://cdn.masto.host/enosmtown/media_attachments/files/111/399/201/811/679/782/original/e9d4f7678716e4fe.jpeg)
Sunil is a Prophet of Trains.
Now all please rise for the Holy Trinity
*Your* TERF ideology is a belief system. You are perfectly entitled to believe in it. People are also entitled to not believe it, and resist the temptation to make trans people the latest victims of a crazed culture.
https://twitter.com/TodayInSportsCo/status/1786823191769309187
I'd put allowing it in the category of really dumb things for a management team to do, and not something I would want in my organisational culture.
Perhaps the original decision to include *anything* non job-related was the start of the rot, and needs to be reversed?
I have not addressed the different point about flagging particular skills relating to particular patient-groups, such as particular medical conditions or particular specialist skills held by staff eg support skills for say abuse victims or neuro-diverse patients.
That said, I still don't think you're taking the risks seriously.
"The issues that were elucidated yesterday by the high court in Belfast were fairly and thoroughly explored in this House, and in the other place, during both the passage of the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda act as well.
When I and my colleagues raised these concerns here in parliament, we were told by the government we were wrong. And, yet, the high court yesterday in Belfast said we were right."
And Suella's making hay of it, too - seems to be claiming that she was misled as Home Secy, and that the Windsor Framework has failed: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/may/14/grant-shapps-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-conservatives-labour-defence-budget-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-664351498f08618489f6f4c7#block-664351498f08618489f6f4c7
It's a hell of a mess. Tom Pursglove for the govt was basically stalling for time - it's clear that they've been blindsided by the judgment and don't have a clear answer ready.
I wonder if this might make an early election more likely? It might be less risky for the govt to blame the lack of Rwanda flights on the ongoing appeal, rather than have to deal with the fallout if the appeal fails.
And I don’t think you take the othering of transpeople and the current moral panic surround them seriously. But if you don’t think I’m a sincere actor, what’s the point in discussing further?
"The issue is a societal undervaluing of women in sports - which is underpinned by the misogynistic view that women's sports is somehow lesser than men's sports because men are just naturally faster, stronger, fitter, etc. Which is also the underpinning argument for why transwomen shouldn't be in sports (because the people making the argument see transwomen as men). Maybe in tackling that we would tackle the issue of whether there is fair representation and participation of women in sports" - that is nonsense
But part of the Telegraph agenda will be some modest shit-stirring.
Incidentally, we seem to have lost two blue-tit chicks overnight. They were very active in the warm weather of the last couple of days but they’ve quietened down today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZONpO9uIYM
In the past I assume most people would just leave people be as long as they weren’t causing a problem; it’s only now that there is this moral panic that people are policing the issue.
Chinese Innovation, Green Industrial Policy and the Rise of Solar Energy
https://economics.unibocconi.eu/sites/default/files/files/media/attachments/ray_of_hope___paper(8)20240412112838.pdf
..Our main result showcases a link between production subsidies and
sustained innovative activity. This is consistent with theories of learning by doing, whereby current production, enabled by policy support, affects future productivity and hence innovative activity...
You make a lot of these assertions and when you finally post the evidence it doesn't support them. Like when you said that tennis became segregated when women started beating men. When all the "evidence" you posted did was show that women played the sport.
Sex segregated sports WORKS for most people. There is no need to change it. It helps no-one and would harm a significant number.