Any update from Derby? Not suggesting anything suspicious but surely they have enough to charge by now? I know they can no longer question once charged but seems a long time considering the alleged guy was arrested at the scene.
I am so glad I am such a good Muslim and do not drink the devil's buttermilk.
It seems people get drunk and make complete arses of themselves.
Teetotallers are more than able to make complete arses of themselves of course, believe me, but some people realllly cannot handle their booze it seems.
One of the several reasons I don’t drink is that about 95% of people are the same person sober or drunk but some people end up saying or doing something that cannot be undone.
It is a magnificent contribution of solidarity to mark Trans Day of Visibility.
Incidentally we used to have a poster on PB who went by the name @byronic. I wonder if they are one and the same?
I know you're only joking but I think it's important not to lump creepy fetishistic guys in with trans people, who experience a genuine disconnect between mind and body that only medical intervention can fix.
Sadly it's often the transphobic, far right men who are most into kinky "trans" porn (all unrealistic tosh aimed squarely at male fetishists), which leads many to believe that trans women are in some way deviant and perverted, when it is perverted blokes that have the problem. If you look at the data, trans porn is, by the way, far more popular in red states in America than Blue.
The louder the transphobe, the more interesting a peek at their browser history becomes.
It’s not just men who like kink
I once had a very pretty girlfriend who had really involved sexual fantasies surrounding bath time. She demanded that I go to Hamleys and a buy a bath toy which she found particularly arousing
The toy had a clockwork mechanism meaning it could whirr around the bath-water and go into corners… and indeed into all sorts of places. The toy made her very happy. She called it “Mister Squiddy”
In daily life she had a very sober and serious job. Humans are gloriously weird
In my experience the ladies are far kinkier in the bedroom than I have ever been. I think it is because women use this thing called "the imagination" whereas men tend to be much more physical/visual in their choice of stimulus...
I have a fair amount of experience in this. I’ve got a few kinks - indeed accepting then exploring them was a transformative moment in my life. I was encouraged by a wise female friend who pointed out my obvious tendencies. “Just accept it and find girlfriends that like it the other way round”
I thank her for that because I became much happier. I had far better sex from then on. Indeed better relationships. I only wish I’d done it sooner
As for gender differences I suspect men and women are equally kinky given the chance. Why should they not be? The only difference is that women have to be more cautious due to relative physical weakness. But they certainly don’t lack in relative imagination
There is some interesting research ( I forget the source, sorry) that suggests hunter-gatherer societies were far less kinky than modern societies.
The reason for this isn't certain, but the author suggested that it was because there was less repression of desire, fewer taboos against what we'd now call sexual deviancy, as well as fewer societies where monogamy was encouraged.
The tentative conclusion is that kink relies on our desires to be taboo-breakers. No real idea if this is true but it's interesting.
I’m not very convinced by this. Animals are kinky as fuck
One of my favourite books of all time is all about kink and “perversity” in the animal world. It’s called Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl
Ducks are particularly depraved and dolphins would shock the average Epstein dinner party
I’m sure hedgehogs like a bit of man on man action. Could have been a weird dream though.
Dolphins are dirty fuckers however with a nose like that you may as well use it.
🚨EXC: The captain of one of Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines has stepped back from his role this week after being investigated over his relationship with Joani Reid, the Labour MP whose husband has been arrested on suspicion of spying for China
Royal Navy launched investigation last year in response to allegations the senior military officer — who’s married — had conducted an inappropriate relationship w/ Reid, acc to people familiar with matter
Probe was from “due diligence perspective” to examine any blackmail risk
Fresh security checks were carried out this month after Reid’s husband was arrested under the UK National Security Act on suspicion of assisting China’s foreign intelligence service, the people said
MoD was satisfied by the checks & remains confident of no breach of security
This week, after the MoD was approached about the matter by the Financial Times, the officer decided to step back from his position for personal reasons. He has not left the Royal Navy
People familiar with case said that allegations of an inappropriate relationship were thoroughly investigated last year and the captain was not subjected to disciplinary action. The officer has not broken any military rules
However, the captain and Reid were found to have exchanged flirtatious messages & action was taken to mitigate any blackmail risk, one of the people said. Reid rejects that the messages were flirtatious, a person close to her said
There was no physical relationship btwn the pair
A Royal Navy spokesperson told the FT: “The security of the nuclear deterrent is our highest priority, and we have robust processes in place to protect the security of our people and capabilities. We will not comment on individual cases.”
I’m sure a common interest in nautical matters on the Clyde was what brought them together.
As I said the other day, my MI5/6 psychiatrist boffin has told me the security services are terrified that the entire UK Establishment has been penetrated and compromised by the Chinese
From the judiciary to defence to parliament. If it’s true it explains a lot of otherwise inexplicable things
Like what? We haven't matched US tariffs on China?
Any update from Derby? Not suggesting anything suspicious but surely they have enough to charge by now? I know they can no longer question once charged but seems a long time considering the alleged guy was arrested at the scene.
He’s been charged.
You sure? Can’t find anything anywhere to say that.
It is a magnificent contribution of solidarity to mark Trans Day of Visibility.
Incidentally we used to have a poster on PB who went by the name @byronic. I wonder if they are one and the same?
I know you're only joking but I think it's important not to lump creepy fetishistic guys in with trans people, who experience a genuine disconnect between mind and body that only medical intervention can fix.
Sadly it's often the transphobic, far right men who are most into kinky "trans" porn (all unrealistic tosh aimed squarely at male fetishists), which leads many to believe that trans women are in some way deviant and perverted, when it is perverted blokes that have the problem. If you look at the data, trans porn is, by the way, far more popular in red states in America than Blue.
The louder the transphobe, the more interesting a peek at their browser history becomes.
The lumping in of creepy fetishistic men with trans people isn't the fault of those sitting on the trans-sceptical side of the argument, it is a feature of a law that allows a person to declare themselves the opposite sex if they so desire. This silly sod with his bizarre uneven fake boobs is exactly the type who could demand his right to enter a ladies' changing room because he is a woman.
This is not true. In the UK at least (I did quite a bit of research into this for Viewcode's article) you can only change gender markers and thus be considered female if you have a doctor's note and so called "real life experience", i.e. you need to prove you are living as a woman full time before you can change your status and be seen as one in law.
And it is precisely to keep fetishistic men out of women's spaces that I oppose self ID and think medical intervention is necessary.
The recent judgement does rather render a GRC meaningless, but I agree there should be some sort of formal medical evaluation.
In practice it is very difficult to access gender services, and waiting lists are years long on the NHS, so people live in their new gender without any real support.
Indeed, this was noted in my response to Viewcode (which I don't think anyone read) where I pointed out that the "transmedicalist view" (that one should have a diagnosis and be on active medical treatment to be treated as trans) is complicated by the fact the adult waiting time on the NHS for even a diagnosis in 12 years and full SRS up to a decade after that, so one could come out as a teenager and not be transitioned until middle age.
Better trans healthcare for all who need it I say! Now, if only there was a party with a leader who knew something about growing breasts...
Also - To briefly come back to luckyguy - there's no contradiction. I'm literally saying that only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access, which requires medical intervention and living full time as a woman. So your weird guy with latex boobs would not count, as no doctor would sign it off. That's why medical gatekeeping remains important.
There is also the catch 22 of being required to live as the chosen gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC, but how can you do so without access to single sex spaces?
Indeed. And it's not about toilets, either. "Prove you're a woman by living as a woman, by the way also you're banned from joining the Women's Institute"...
How does one live as a woman?
You sound interested in the process! I'm sure a friendly trans woman could tell you more - there are forums dedicated to it I'm sure! It's never too late to start HRT, my questioning friend.
As in can you define it? Does it involve not liking football, or taking up knitting?
Look up "social transition" and "lived experience requirements" as well as what a psychiatrist will ask as supporting evidence from friends and family. For contrast, you should also read Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl", which rails against precisely the sort of stereotyping you're bringing up here.
You do seem very interested and I assure you, even at your age, it's totally normal to be questioning your feelings about your gender. Perhaps you could experiment a little bit by growing out your hair, painting your nails, or treating yourself to some other form of gender affirming care? I promise I won't tell!
My interest is purely academic. I find the concept of gender being different to sex weird. And I think the idea of living as a different gender when there is no definition of how that gender lives is tricky. We are all different. Celebrate those differences. But you can’t change sex.
Accepting at face value that gender now means something different to sex: I don't believe in gender.
In the same way I don't believe in God. And just as with that, I support others rights' to believe they have a gender, whether that is the same or different to their sex. Or believe they are non-binary. Just as I support people's rights to practice their own religion, whatever that may be.
Hard to disagree with that up to point where your ‘religion’ impinges on others ‘religions’.
Projection based on the new Survation Scottish Parliament election poll has the SNP collapsing to just 56 MSPs in May, their lowest total since 2007. Reform official opposition just 1 seat ahead of Labour
Given the persistent levels of political support for Indy, and the divided unionist vote, then that kind of result seems likely to persist for some time.
Which is funny when you consider the Westminster seats in Scotland have been through a rollercoaster of a time in the last 16 years.
SNP still projected to lose almost 10 seats on 2021
Any update from Derby? Not suggesting anything suspicious but surely they have enough to charge by now? I know they can no longer question once charged but seems a long time considering the alleged guy was arrested at the scene.
He’s been charged.
You sure? Can’t find anything anywhere to say that.
Any update from Derby? Not suggesting anything suspicious but surely they have enough to charge by now? I know they can no longer question once charged but seems a long time considering the alleged guy was arrested at the scene.
He’s been charged.
You sure? Can’t find anything anywhere to say that.
Given the light blues haven't produced a PM since Stanley Baldwin (who graduated with a Third in 1888) you might say a school of Government is long overdue. But £190m may not be enough to help them catch up.
There is no PPE degree at Cambridge, most budding politicians there studied either History eg Rab Butler, Portillo, Jenrick and Streeting, Law eg Ken Clarke and Michael Howard or Economics eg Norman Lamont with the odd Social and Political Sciences graduate (eg Clegg which also includes anthropology and sociology). Burnham is also ex Cambridge but studied English
Should also be pointed out the King went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth for a term) not Oxford
🚨EXC: The captain of one of Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines has stepped back from his role this week after being investigated over his relationship with Joani Reid, the Labour MP whose husband has been arrested on suspicion of spying for China
Royal Navy launched investigation last year in response to allegations the senior military officer — who’s married — had conducted an inappropriate relationship w/ Reid, acc to people familiar with matter
Probe was from “due diligence perspective” to examine any blackmail risk
Fresh security checks were carried out this month after Reid’s husband was arrested under the UK National Security Act on suspicion of assisting China’s foreign intelligence service, the people said
MoD was satisfied by the checks & remains confident of no breach of security
This week, after the MoD was approached about the matter by the Financial Times, the officer decided to step back from his position for personal reasons. He has not left the Royal Navy
People familiar with case said that allegations of an inappropriate relationship were thoroughly investigated last year and the captain was not subjected to disciplinary action. The officer has not broken any military rules
However, the captain and Reid were found to have exchanged flirtatious messages & action was taken to mitigate any blackmail risk, one of the people said. Reid rejects that the messages were flirtatious, a person close to her said
There was no physical relationship btwn the pair
A Royal Navy spokesperson told the FT: “The security of the nuclear deterrent is our highest priority, and we have robust processes in place to protect the security of our people and capabilities. We will not comment on individual cases.”
"We have yet to feel the full force of oil and gas price spikes and energy shortages.
"But they’ve started in Asia, the destination for most oil and gas that went through the Strait of Hormuz. They’re now coming our way, arriving by the middle of April at the latest, as they roll west across the globe.
"Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it isn’t going to. Energy shocks unfold sequentially NOT simultaneously...
"Western governments need to wake up to the economic tsunami coming their way. The Starmer government in particular needs to get a grip.
"The PM and his ministers are dangerously insouciant in the face of what’s about to hit them. They speak in generalities, with no sense of urgency, complacently out of their depth. I fear they have no idea what’s in store."
I've been saying this since the start.
We're headed for a de facto lockdown.
Blessed be the EV drivers.
I remember buying a big chest freezer before the pandemic got going (Feb I think) and asking in the store if there was a run on them, and the staff looking a bit nonplussed.
It feels like we are at that stage. Everyone has noticed the fuel prices but they haven't twigged what happens next.
If one were to want to acquire an electric runaround, some solar panels and a battery...where to start?
In a month there aren't going to be any available.
It would take about a month to charge a modern EV off an array of panels you could put in/around mists houses in the U.K.
Unless you happen to have a pile of farmland.
You can get second hand EVs for reasonable prices.
An electric bike would be more practical for the solar panel charging thing,
Yes, I think I'd get somewhere around 10 miles a day if I covered the garage. But might as well do the whole setup...
I refuse to get an electric bike on the grounds that my legs still work. Using one is giving in!
Given the light blues haven't produced a PM since Stanley Baldwin (who graduated with a Third in 1888) you might say a school of Government is long overdue. But £190m may not be enough to help them catch up.
There is no PPE degree at Cambridge, most budding politicians there studied either History eg Rab Butler, Portillo, Jenrick and Streeting, Law eg Ken Clarke and Michael Howard or Economics eg Norman Lamont with the odd Social and Political Sciences graduate (eg Clegg which also includes anthropology and sociology). Burnham is also ex Cambridge but studied English
Should also be pointed out the King went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth for a term) not Oxford
Thank goodness, if we’re sending him to deal with Trump.
It is a magnificent contribution of solidarity to mark Trans Day of Visibility.
Incidentally we used to have a poster on PB who went by the name @byronic. I wonder if they are one and the same?
I know you're only joking but I think it's important not to lump creepy fetishistic guys in with trans people, who experience a genuine disconnect between mind and body that only medical intervention can fix.
Sadly it's often the transphobic, far right men who are most into kinky "trans" porn (all unrealistic tosh aimed squarely at male fetishists), which leads many to believe that trans women are in some way deviant and perverted, when it is perverted blokes that have the problem. If you look at the data, trans porn is, by the way, far more popular in red states in America than Blue.
The louder the transphobe, the more interesting a peek at their browser history becomes.
The lumping in of creepy fetishistic men with trans people isn't the fault of those sitting on the trans-sceptical side of the argument, it is a feature of a law that allows a person to declare themselves the opposite sex if they so desire. This silly sod with his bizarre uneven fake boobs is exactly the type who could demand his right to enter a ladies' changing room because he is a woman.
This is not true. In the UK at least (I did quite a bit of research into this for Viewcode's article) you can only change gender markers and thus be considered female if you have a doctor's note and so called "real life experience", i.e. you need to prove you are living as a woman full time before you can change your status and be seen as one in law.
And it is precisely to keep fetishistic men out of women's spaces that I oppose self ID and think medical intervention is necessary.
The recent judgement does rather render a GRC meaningless, but I agree there should be some sort of formal medical evaluation.
In practice it is very difficult to access gender services, and waiting lists are years long on the NHS, so people live in their new gender without any real support.
Indeed, this was noted in my response to Viewcode (which I don't think anyone read) where I pointed out that the "transmedicalist view" (that one should have a diagnosis and be on active medical treatment to be treated as trans) is complicated by the fact the adult waiting time on the NHS for even a diagnosis in 12 years and full SRS up to a decade after that, so one could come out as a teenager and not be transitioned until middle age.
Better trans healthcare for all who need it I say! Now, if only there was a party with a leader who knew something about growing breasts...
Also - To briefly come back to luckyguy - there's no contradiction. I'm literally saying that only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access, which requires medical intervention and living full time as a woman. So your weird guy with latex boobs would not count, as no doctor would sign it off. That's why medical gatekeeping remains important.
There is also the catch 22 of being required to live as the chosen gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC, but how can you do so without access to single sex spaces?
Indeed. And it's not about toilets, either. "Prove you're a woman by living as a woman, by the way also you're banned from joining the Women's Institute"...
How does one live as a woman?
You sound interested in the process! I'm sure a friendly trans woman could tell you more - there are forums dedicated to it I'm sure! It's never too late to start HRT, my questioning friend.
As in can you define it? Does it involve not liking football, or taking up knitting?
Look up "social transition" and "lived experience requirements" as well as what a psychiatrist will ask as supporting evidence from friends and family. For contrast, you should also read Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl", which rails against precisely the sort of stereotyping you're bringing up here.
You do seem very interested and I assure you, even at your age, it's totally normal to be questioning your feelings about your gender. Perhaps you could experiment a little bit by growing out your hair, painting your nails, or treating yourself to some other form of gender affirming care? I promise I won't tell!
My interest is purely academic. I find the concept of gender being different to sex weird. And I think the idea of living as a different gender when there is no definition of how that gender lives is tricky. We are all different. Celebrate those differences. But you can’t change sex.
Accepting at face value that gender now means something different to sex: I don't believe in gender.
In the same way I don't believe in God. And just as with that, I support others rights' to believe they have a gender, whether that is the same or different to their sex. Or believe they are non-binary. Just as I support people's rights to practice their own religion, whatever that may be.
Hard to disagree with that up to point where your ‘religion’ impinges on others ‘religions’.
Agreed. And the clashing of 'freedoms' between groups is always hard. Some areas are easier than others.
But I think it's important to make the point that men should be free to wear dresses, make-up and heels and that they do not need to identify as a different gender to do so. They can just be a man doing something they enjoy.
I think if deviations from gender norms were more widespread then fewer people would feel the need to change gender/sex.
Given the light blues haven't produced a PM since Stanley Baldwin (who graduated with a Third in 1888) you might say a school of Government is long overdue. But £190m may not be enough to help them catch up.
There is no PPE degree at Cambridge, most budding politicians there studied either History eg Rab Butler, Portillo, Jenrick and Streeting, Law eg Ken Clarke and Michael Howard or Economics eg Norman Lamont with the odd Social and Political Sciences graduate (eg Clegg which also includes anthropology and sociology). Burnham is also ex Cambridge but studied English
Should also be pointed out the King went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth for a term) not Oxford
Thank goodness, if we’re sending him to deal with Trump.
The Prince of Wales went to St Andrews, only most of their chief bureaucrats went to Oxford
Any update from Derby? Not suggesting anything suspicious but surely they have enough to charge by now? I know they can no longer question once charged but seems a long time considering the alleged guy was arrested at the scene.
He’s been charged.
You sure? Can’t find anything anywhere to say that.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
It is a magnificent contribution of solidarity to mark Trans Day of Visibility.
Incidentally we used to have a poster on PB who went by the name @byronic. I wonder if they are one and the same?
I know you're only joking but I think it's important not to lump creepy fetishistic guys in with trans people, who experience a genuine disconnect between mind and body that only medical intervention can fix.
Sadly it's often the transphobic, far right men who are most into kinky "trans" porn (all unrealistic tosh aimed squarely at male fetishists), which leads many to believe that trans women are in some way deviant and perverted, when it is perverted blokes that have the problem. If you look at the data, trans porn is, by the way, far more popular in red states in America than Blue.
The louder the transphobe, the more interesting a peek at their browser history becomes.
It’s not just men who like kink
I once had a very pretty girlfriend who had really involved sexual fantasies surrounding bath time. She demanded that I go to Hamleys and a buy a bath toy which she found particularly arousing
The toy had a clockwork mechanism meaning it could whirr around the bath-water and go into corners… and indeed into all sorts of places. The toy made her very happy. She called it “Mister Squiddy”
In daily life she had a very sober and serious job. Humans are gloriously weird
In my experience the ladies are far kinkier in the bedroom than I have ever been. I think it is because women use this thing called "the imagination" whereas men tend to be much more physical/visual in their choice of stimulus...
I have a fair amount of experience in this. I’ve got a few kinks - indeed accepting then exploring them was a transformative moment in my life. I was encouraged by a wise female friend who pointed out my obvious tendencies. “Just accept it and find girlfriends that like it the other way round”
I thank her for that because I became much happier. I had far better sex from then on. Indeed better relationships. I only wish I’d done it sooner
As for gender differences I suspect men and women are equally kinky given the chance. Why should they not be? The only difference is that women have to be more cautious due to relative physical weakness. But they certainly don’t lack in relative imagination
There is some interesting research ( I forget the source, sorry) that suggests hunter-gatherer societies were far less kinky than modern societies.
The reason for this isn't certain, but the author suggested that it was because there was less repression of desire, fewer taboos against what we'd now call sexual deviancy, as well as fewer societies where monogamy was encouraged.
The tentative conclusion is that kink relies on our desires to be taboo-breakers. No real idea if this is true but it's interesting.
I’m not very convinced by this. Animals are kinky as fuck
One of my favourite books of all time is all about kink and “perversity” in the animal world. It’s called Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl
Ducks are particularly depraved and dolphins would shock the average Epstein dinner party
I have just done a quick hunt for the research and can't find it, so I shall defer to your knowledge of dolphin depravity.
Looks like it’s out of print. Which is nuts. It’s a masterpiece
🚨EXC: The captain of one of Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines has stepped back from his role this week after being investigated over his relationship with Joani Reid, the Labour MP whose husband has been arrested on suspicion of spying for China
Royal Navy launched investigation last year in response to allegations the senior military officer — who’s married — had conducted an inappropriate relationship w/ Reid, acc to people familiar with matter
Probe was from “due diligence perspective” to examine any blackmail risk
Fresh security checks were carried out this month after Reid’s husband was arrested under the UK National Security Act on suspicion of assisting China’s foreign intelligence service, the people said
MoD was satisfied by the checks & remains confident of no breach of security
This week, after the MoD was approached about the matter by the Financial Times, the officer decided to step back from his position for personal reasons. He has not left the Royal Navy
People familiar with case said that allegations of an inappropriate relationship were thoroughly investigated last year and the captain was not subjected to disciplinary action. The officer has not broken any military rules
However, the captain and Reid were found to have exchanged flirtatious messages & action was taken to mitigate any blackmail risk, one of the people said. Reid rejects that the messages were flirtatious, a person close to her said
There was no physical relationship btwn the pair
A Royal Navy spokesperson told the FT: “The security of the nuclear deterrent is our highest priority, and we have robust processes in place to protect the security of our people and capabilities. We will not comment on individual cases.”
Trump mocks Iran for threatening to strike U.S. tech companies in the Middle East: "What did they threaten them with BB guns?! They don't have much left to threaten."
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
Does anyone know what on earth is going on with the Italian football team? They've failed to beat Bosnia in normal time (with ten men) and it's gone to penalties.
I still thought Italy was one of the best teams in the world.
England have had bleak qualifying for tournaments. Euro92 was notable for Greece winning and for England not being there. And then not at the 94 World Cup after making the semis in 1990. In recent times they’ve made qualifying look rather easy, but it hasn’t always been so. Expanding tournaments helps, of course. Even Scotland make it these days…
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
...And, come to that, don't be rude. I spent six months writing an article and pulled you, NigelB, Cyclefree and many others in specifically to retain a balance between pro-trans and gender-critical folk.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
Honestly, it feels like you're trying to "no true scotsman" me. If someone reports their personal identity, you argue it isn't reliable. If someone meets generally accepted criteria, you argue those criteria are insufficient. I suggest hormones as a criteria, i.e. turning "medic feels" into something measurable, you ignore it. In your world, the very category of "transness" becomes impossible to satisfy in practice. Which is a very TERFy move, I'm afraid.
I note that Brandolini's Law was discussed here in a recent thread, and I think the amount of time I have to put into refuting all your "just asking questions" questions is disproportionate to the amount of time it takes you to go something like "well, any behavioural criterion can be faked or turned into a tick box, any medical step could be done for the wrong reasons, therefore no evidence is sufficient". This is very similar to how gender criticals are trying to shape reviews of NHS care of trans people to deny trans healthcare, if you are unaware.
I have given clear criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under gender incongruence. This is certified by a psychiatrist who loses their licence if they don't take it very seriously, which is why trans people are currently very, very heavily gatekept and many denied (much to their annoyance - the criteria are arguably too strict!). When this isn't enough for you, I've suggested hormones as the gold standard as there is provable evidence that giving cross sex hormones to non trans people makes them freak out, as "real men" don't like growing boobies and other side effects.
As I say, I'm not going to keep going down the no true scotsman argument with you, because it's a TERF tactic to delegitimise the existence of trans people. If that's not your aim, I'm sorry, but it is the cumulative effect.
Given the light blues haven't produced a PM since Stanley Baldwin (who graduated with a Third in 1888) you might say a school of Government is long overdue. But £190m may not be enough to help them catch up.
Places like Grimsby College or Flint Polytechnic could probably do with the money a lot more than Cambridge.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
Honestly, it feels like you're trying to "no true scotsman" me. If someone reports their personal identity, you argue it isn't reliable. If someone meets generally accepted criteria, you argue those criteria are insufficient. I suggest hormones as a criteria, i.e. turning "medic feels" into something measurable, you ignore it. In your world, the very category of "transness" becomes impossible to satisfy in practice. Which is a very TERFy move, I'm afraid.
I note that Brandolini's Law was discussed here in a recent thread, and I think the amount of time I have to put into refuting all your "just asking questions" questions is disproportionate to the amount of time it takes you to go something like "well, any behavioural criterion can be faked or turned into a tick box, any medical step could be done for the wrong reasons, therefore no evidence is sufficient". This is very similar to how gender criticals are trying to shape reviews of NHS care of trans people to deny trans healthcare, if you are unaware.
I have given clear criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under gender incongruence. This is certified by a psychiatrist who loses their licence if they don't take it very seriously, which is why trans people are currently very, very heavily gatekept and many denied (much to their annoyance - the criteria are arguably too strict!). When this isn't enough for you, I've suggested hormones as the gold standard as there is provable evidence that giving cross sex hormones to non trans people makes them freak out, as "real men" don't like growing boobies and other side effects.
As I say, I'm not going to keep going down the no true scotsman argument with you, because it's a TERF tactic to delegitimise the existence of trans people. If that's not your aim, I'm sorry, but it is the cumulative effect.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
...And, come to that, don't be rude. I spent six months writing an article and pulled you, NigelB, Cyclefree and many others in specifically to retain a balance between pro-trans and gender-critical folk.
I don't believe there's any need for us to start lobbing unfair criticism at each other, I'm simply pointing out that many of the arguments you've deployed lately have been - even if unconsciously and without intention - very TERF adjacent. They are the same tactics gender criticals use to delegitimise trans people, and even if that is not your intent, it is the effect, which is why I'm having trouble engaging with them.
...only those with medical diagnoses should be granted access...
I'm not being funny, but I'm extremely cynical about the "medical diagnosis" part now. Leaving aside the question of what the failure rate for the diagnosis is and what is the maximum we can accept, there is also the question of "what is it exactly we are diagnosing"? Things like brain sex may or may not be true but doesn't translate to a testable test. Past behavior can be faked. Narratives can be learned and regurgitated.
If we limit ourselves to "does this person has a penis" or "is this person chemically or physically castrate" then I can do a test for that. But "I am a woman in a man's body"? Am I supposed to use divination? Vibe diagnosis?
People are evaluated by a psychiarist/clinical psychologist (often over a number of sessions) according (in the UK) to specific diagnostic criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under "gender incongruence". This in the UK if I understand it correctly also involves speaking to a friend or family member who knows the person to verify they are living "full time".
Effectively, it is quite a large gatekeeping step, and as I say, no doctor is going to sign off on Mad Jack McFetishist who wears latex inflatable boobs while watching kink porn, but lives an everyday, straight, cis male existence in all other parts of his life. They would lose their license very quickly.
It is why, despite trans people criticising this step as gatekeeping, i.e. allowing doctors to decide who is trans enough, I think it's a vital step. As it really does sort out the genuine cases from the fetishists.
I know that, but it converts a putative mental condition into a set of behaviours that can be done by anyone. If person X changes their name by deed poll, crossdresses and uses the other pronouns in work and at home 24/7, performs minor surgical/cosmetic changes like having their facial hair removed, then I can convert that into a checklist ("This person has exhibited 7 out of 10 of the diagnostic behaviours") and diagnose. But that's not diagnosing a mental illness, it's diagnosing a set of behaviours, and anybody can do those behaviours. I don't know and can't know the reason for those behaviors other than by asking them, and they may lie, be mistaken, or erroneously recall.
Hence my cynicism.
As others have pointed out, the same can be said of autism, depression etc. It is up to the psychiatrist - whose reputation and indeed ability to practice - is on the line if they give out "you're trans now" passes to all and sundry. Which is precisely why trans people get annoyed. Because they are, at the moment, heavily gatekept.
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
Don't be silly. I'm a statistician working for a contract research organisation. Asking these questions - converting surgeon/medic feels into something measurable - is my job.
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
Honestly, it feels like you're trying to "no true scotsman" me. If someone reports their personal identity, you argue it isn't reliable. If someone meets generally accepted criteria, you argue those criteria are insufficient. I suggest hormones as a criteria, i.e. turning "medic feels" into something measurable, you ignore it. In your world, the very category of "transness" becomes impossible to satisfy in practice. Which is a very TERFy move, I'm afraid.
I note that Brandolini's Law was discussed here in a recent thread, and I think the amount of time I have to put into refuting all your "just asking questions" questions is disproportionate to the amount of time it takes you to go something like "well, any behavioural criterion can be faked or turned into a tick box, any medical step could be done for the wrong reasons, therefore no evidence is sufficient". This is very similar to how gender criticals are trying to shape reviews of NHS care of trans people to deny trans healthcare, if you are unaware.
I have given clear criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under gender incongruence. This is certified by a psychiatrist who loses their licence if they don't take it very seriously, which is why trans people are currently very, very heavily gatekept and many denied (much to their annoyance - the criteria are arguably too strict!). When this isn't enough for you, I've suggested hormones as the gold standard as there is provable evidence that giving cross sex hormones to non trans people makes them freak out, as "real men" don't like growing boobies and other side effects.
As I say, I'm not going to keep going down the no true scotsman argument with you, because it's a TERF tactic to delegitimise the existence of trans people. If that's not your aim, I'm sorry, but it is the cumulative effect.
It wasn't my aim.
That I understand, see my most recent comment. Truce.
Given the light blues haven't produced a PM since Stanley Baldwin (who graduated with a Third in 1888) you might say a school of Government is long overdue. But £190m may not be enough to help them catch up.
Places like Grimsby College or Flint Polytechnic could probably do with the money a lot more than Cambridge.
Not necessarily, 'The Times Higher Education website claimed recently, external that philanthropy to elite UK universities is in decline. It found donations to Russell Group institutions had peaked at just over £650m in 2023-24, and since declined to around £546m last year.'
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter BREAKING: President Trump says the US will leave Iran in “2 to 3 weeks.”
===
Two weeks you say?
Always with the two weeks thing. Is this some childhood shit? Told he couldn't have another bigmac for two weeks.
Iran: So we hold out another three weeks and we're good?
(Ok, clearly they've suffered a lot of damage, but this 'we'll be out of there at any moment' messaging from Trump seems odd in terms of any negotiations going on)
...I suggest hormones as a criteria, i.e. turning "medic feels" into something measurable, you ignore it...
I ignored it because you were also calling me a TERF and I wanted to respond to that first
Apologies. To clarify, my point is that some of the arguments deployed (namely no diagnostic criteria can ever truly prove transness) are functionally identical to the arguments TERFs are currently deploying to shape the adult review of trans health care services, which would effectively deny trans people gender affirming care on the NHS if it goes through. Which you may be unaware of. But this is why I got snippy and said "well if you're gonna keep deploying TERF arguments, you might as well come out as a TERF". That doesn't mean *no* questions can be asked, or you don't have a valid point about checklists being turning into box ticking exercises, I just wanted to halt the one true scotsmanning and say well actually, some people are trans and there are legitimate ways of knowing with reasonable confidence (which is why psychiatrists are paid a large amount of money and licenced to give out diagnoses).
"We have yet to feel the full force of oil and gas price spikes and energy shortages.
"But they’ve started in Asia, the destination for most oil and gas that went through the Strait of Hormuz. They’re now coming our way, arriving by the middle of April at the latest, as they roll west across the globe.
"Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it isn’t going to. Energy shocks unfold sequentially NOT simultaneously...
"Western governments need to wake up to the economic tsunami coming their way. The Starmer government in particular needs to get a grip.
"The PM and his ministers are dangerously insouciant in the face of what’s about to hit them. They speak in generalities, with no sense of urgency, complacently out of their depth. I fear they have no idea what’s in store."
I've been saying this since the start.
We're headed for a de facto lockdown.
Blessed be the EV drivers.
I remember buying a big chest freezer before the pandemic got going (Feb I think) and asking in the store if there was a run on them, and the staff looking a bit nonplussed.
It feels like we are at that stage. Everyone has noticed the fuel prices but they haven't twigged what happens next.
If one were to want to acquire an electric runaround, some solar panels and a battery...where to start?
In a month there aren't going to be any available.
Getting solar panels and a battery installed in a few weeks! Don't really need a car so not bothering with an EV.
Yesterday I learned what karaoke means in Japanese - Kara okestura or "empty orchestra". So although it is now a loan word from Japanese to English, it includes a loan word from English (or maybe some other European language) to Japanese. A fascinating picture into cultural exchange, all contained in a word.
It's not "their entire source code". It was a source map for claude code. Anyone bothered could have read most of this from the minified source anyway. Sure, some of the comments and so on are amusing but this is a meh.
Comments
I don’t want to be in that 5%.
The American AWACS is....er, was...
I seem to recall there are a bunch of reasons why they delay.
Also they wait for the CPS to work what the charges should be such as here attempted murder or GBH.
An adaption of a famous quote by Joani’s granda in case anyone was unaware.
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/lifestyle/13223850.jimmy-reid-1971-there-will-be-no-hooliganism-there-will-be-no-vandalism-there-will-be-no-bevvying-because-the-world-is-watching-us/
I refuse to get an electric bike on the grounds that my legs still work. Using one is giving in!
But I think it's important to make the point that men should be free to wear dresses, make-up and heels and that they do not need to identify as a different gender to do so. They can just be a man doing something they enjoy.
I think if deviations from gender norms were more widespread then fewer people would feel the need to change gender/sex.
Hence my cynicism.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15695845/Families-barricaded-inside-high-street-stores-mobs-youths-storm-Clapham-AGAIN.html
Trump mocks Iran for threatening to strike U.S. tech companies in the Middle East: "What did they threaten them with BB guns?! They don't have much left to threaten."
Indeed, while not a specific, named "checklist requirement" for the letter the doctor has to write you in support of your ID change, I am pretty certain that few if any doctors are prepared to write the letter required if you are not in active medical treatment, i.e. taking hormones. While researching my response to you I noticed a large number of doctors were rejecting letters of support for ID changes on this very basis. Taking hormones is a pretty good, reliable, medically demonstrable way of proving transness. Not only does it demonstrate commitment (if a guy is a perv, there are easier ways to perv on women than taking hormones that will permanently destroy their fertility, make them unable to maintain an erection, and grow a pair, so to speak). Furthermore there is substantial evidence that being on the wrong hormones or being forcibly transitioned causes revulsion in those who aren't legitimately trans. See Alan Turing, who was forced onto female hormones as a way of curtailing his sex drive (again, HRT causes loss of male sexual function) and grew breasts, which caused him to become dysphoric.
Your cynicism seems to be of the "just asking questions" type which is actually masking a deep disbelief in the existence of trans people, tbh. Which is your right, but you should just be up front about it and join the official TERF crowd.
The Kobeissi Letter
@KobeissiLetter
BREAKING: President Trump says the US will leave Iran in “2 to 3 weeks.”
===
Two weeks you say?
Always with the two weeks thing. Is this some childhood shit? Told he couldn't have another bigmac for two weeks.
Content note. He isn't actually IN Iran at all. So can't "leave".
With regards to "the same can be said of autism, depression etc", I'm dubious about those as well, and I remind you of my long-standing dislike of spectrum diagnoses.
2004 - Greece
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
Pass the hot sauce.
We've reached the predicted TACO moment.
In his presser right now, he basically says, adios Iran!
Mission Accomplished!
https://x.com/davidaxelrod/status/2039100781400625366
I note that Brandolini's Law was discussed here in a recent thread, and I think the amount of time I have to put into refuting all your "just asking questions" questions is disproportionate to the amount of time it takes you to go something like "well, any behavioural criterion can be faked or turned into a tick box, any medical step could be done for the wrong reasons, therefore no evidence is sufficient". This is very similar to how gender criticals are trying to shape reviews of NHS care of trans people to deny trans healthcare, if you are unaware.
I have given clear criteria, namely those set out in the ICD-11 under gender incongruence. This is certified by a psychiatrist who loses their licence if they don't take it very seriously, which is why trans people are currently very, very heavily gatekept and many denied (much to their annoyance - the criteria are arguably too strict!). When this isn't enough for you, I've suggested hormones as the gold standard as there is provable evidence that giving cross sex hormones to non trans people makes them freak out, as "real men" don't like growing boobies and other side effects.
As I say, I'm not going to keep going down the no true scotsman argument with you, because it's a TERF tactic to delegitimise the existence of trans people. If that's not your aim, I'm sorry, but it is the cumulative effect.
Sean Parnell
@SeanParnellASW
·
1h
If Iran is wise, they will make a deal.
If not, the War Department will respond with even greater force—at levels they have never seen before.
https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/2039093858236019044
Narrator:
Trump: I'm not bothered. This is all France's problem. I have a ballroom to build.
So, inside his head closing Hormuz is a problem for everyone else.
Every now and then, someone tries to shake him out of it. But he reverts to what he feels.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8gdwqklxo
(Ok, clearly they've suffered a lot of damage, but this 'we'll be out of there at any moment' messaging from Trump seems odd in terms of any negotiations going on)
https://x.com/jamesd_graham/status/2039056848825823240
Have just tried to go to M&S on Clapham high street.
It is flanked by police who inform me all shops on the high street are closed as they are being looted by teenagers.
Lawful citizens can’t shop, private businesses closed. Youths still causing havoc.
Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Boots, all locked down
"One, two, bigly."
https://x.com/Jeremybtc/status/2039077799643005198
Anthropic accidentally leaked their entire source code yesterday. What happened next is one of the most insane stories in tech history.
Anthropic pushed a software update for Claude Code at 4AM.
A debugging file was accidentally bundled inside it.
That file contained 512,000 lines of their proprietary source code.
A researcher named Chaofan Shou spotted it within minutes and posted the download link on X.
21 million people have seen the thread.
The entire codebase was downloaded, copied and mirrored across GitHub before Anthropic's team had even woken up.
Anthropic pulled the package and started firing DMCA takedowns at every repo hosting it.
That's when a Korean developer named Sigrid Jin woke up at 4AM to his phone blowing up.
He is the most active Claude Code user in the world with the Wall Street Journal reporting he personally used 25 billion tokens last year.
His girlfriend was worried he'd get sued just for having the code on his machine.
So he did what any engineer would do.
He rewrote the entire thing in Python from scratch before sunrise.
Called it claw-code and Pushed it to GitHub.
A Python rewrite is a new creative work. DMCA can't touch it.
The repo hit 30,000 stars faster than any repository in GitHub history.
He wasn't satisfied. He started rewriting it again in Rust.
It now has 49,000 stars and 56,000 forks.
Someone mirrored the original to a decentralised platform with one message, "will never be taken down."
The code is now permanent. Anthropic cannot get it back...<.I>