India has just recorded its highest daily death toll.
The virus is, now, really kicking in across the 3rd world and the South (as Spanish Flu did, after its initial northern hit)
India, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Pakistan: all are on the steeper part of the upwards curve
Modi still doing well
In ratings, yes. In managing the pandemic, TBC.
At the moment he has managed the pandemic very well, imposed a lock down early, now easing off. India also has got a death rate per head below the global average and only 4th on total cases despite being 2nd on total population
I can't help feeling there's a bit of a logical flaw in this particular wheeze.
That is truly epic.
what I love is that he hasn’t grasped if he doesn’t use his ballot, that helps the Dems.
Isn't there a theory that Trump didn't want to win in 2016. Maybe he doesn't want to win in 2020?
There's a good chance that if Trump leaves the White House he will shortly thereafter enter jail.
Leave office early and Pence will pardon him. There's a precedent.
I think when Trump was talking about pardoning himself it was pointed out that the Presidential pardon applied only to Federal crimes. People will get him through State law.
"'The science' was right – it was the Government that was wrong SAGE advisors never suggested a full lockdown - so why are they now trying to rewrite history?
Both the Mail and the Borisgraph appear to be hedging their bets...
They will find their spines again when the economic sh*t-storm hits. No one will want to be PM during that screw-up so they may as well make sure Boris and Cummings stay in post so that they can be symbolically sacrificed later on the altar of Political Expedience & Cleansing.
Then a nice clean and unsullied pair of hands can take over.
Is this a 45% drop, or a drop at a 45% annualised rate?
Because there's a massive difference between the two.
(The US reports GDP at an annualised rate, while in Europe - inc UK - GDP is reported on a quarter-over-quarter basis. So if an economy is growing at 3% a year, then it would be reported as 3% in the US, and 0.75% in Europe.)
It had a 3% death rate, probably 3 times higher than the current best guess. But notably the real world has run ahead of this model, our deaths have been higher than a model which predicted 3% of the entire world dying by the end of Septmeber.
The 14th of June will finally see the model rocket ahead of reality and hopefully out of sight. By the end of the month the model will be hopelessly pessimistic.
India has just recorded its highest daily death toll.
The virus is, now, really kicking in across the 3rd world and the South (as Spanish Flu did, after its initial northern hit)
India, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Pakistan: all are on the steeper part of the upwards curve
Modi still doing well
In ratings, yes. In managing the pandemic, TBC.
At the moment he has managed the pandemic very well, imposed a lock down early, now easing off. India also has got a death rate per head below the global average and only 4th on total cases despite being 2nd on total population
I guess the fact they missed the fact the Joint Committee meeting earlier today where the UK would have had to request an extension if we were going to get one was before their meeting tonight?
Having a meeting at 6pm AFTER the final Joint Committee meeting hardly leaves room to discuss it now, does it? Of all the potential criticisms this really is the lamest.
They've made repeated requests - so the timing of this one isn't particularly relevant.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
It had a 3% death rate, probably 3 times higher than the current best guess. But notably the real world has run ahead of this model, our deaths have been higher than a model which predicted 3% of the entire world dying by the end of Septmeber.
The 14th of June will finally see the model rocket ahead of reality and hopefully out of sight. By the end of the month the model will be hopelessly pessimistic.
Indeed - there seem to be two schools of thought regarding the post-virus economy.
One suggests Covid-19 is analogous to a natural disaster - devastating in the short term but only briefly and life quickly returns to how it was before. The theory goes the middle classes in particular have done very nicely out of lockdown - working at home, still being paid and saving a fortune on commuting, lunches and the like. They have plenty of cash and want to go out and spend and they will allow the economy to rebound significantly in the rest of the year. This explains the stock market rallies - individuals and organisations sitting on piles of cash that gets no interest anywhere else can play the market instead.
The other scenario is Covid-19 has done serious long-term damage. Fear and changes of habits will mean people don't rush back to the shops but stay shopping online at home. People won't be commuting or venturing far from home as long as social distancing is in effect and new outbreak will entrench the feelings of fear and insecurity. This will cause carnage in business and a surge in unemployment further depressing the economy. This seemed to be the view of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell but of course President Trump was having none of that.
Indeed - there seem to be two schools of thought regarding the post-virus economy.
One suggests Covid-19 is analogous to a natural disaster - devastating in the short term but only briefly and life quickly returns to how it was before. The theory goes the middle classes in particular have done very nicely out of lockdown - working at home, still being paid and saving a fortune on commuting, lunches and the like. They have plenty of cash and want to go out and spend and they will allow the economy to rebound significantly in the rest of the year. This explains the stock market rallies - individuals and organisations sitting on piles of cash that gets no interest anywhere else can play the market instead.
The other scenario is Covid-19 has done serious long-term damage. Fear and changes of habits will mean people don't rush back to the shops but stay shopping online at home. People won't be commuting or venturing far from home as long as social distancing is in effect and new outbreak will entrench the feelings of fear and insecurity. This will cause carnage in business and a surge in unemployment further depressing the economy. This seemed to be the view of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell but of course President Trump was having none of that.
I believe April in the UK saw a record breaking reduction in credit card and other short term personal debt.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
I don't get your explanation as to why JK is wrong in sitation 2. If a male perv wants to perv on young girls, surely it is easier if he can sit in female changing rooms than if he can't?
I believe April in the UK saw a record breaking reduction in credit card and other short term personal debt.
Understandable if people were stuck at home and not going out to the shops to consume (buy things).
The problem is the economy needs us consuming buying, getting into personal debt, to keep going, The consequence of people stopping consuming is evident.
It's what many thought would happen in 2008 but didn't.
Indeed - there seem to be two schools of thought regarding the post-virus economy.
One suggests Covid-19 is analogous to a natural disaster - devastating in the short term but only briefly and life quickly returns to how it was before. The theory goes the middle classes in particular have done very nicely out of lockdown - working at home, still being paid and saving a fortune on commuting, lunches and the like. They have plenty of cash and want to go out and spend and they will allow the economy to rebound significantly in the rest of the year. This explains the stock market rallies - individuals and organisations sitting on piles of cash that gets no interest anywhere else can play the market instead.
The other scenario is Covid-19 has done serious long-term damage. Fear and changes of habits will mean people don't rush back to the shops but stay shopping online at home. People won't be commuting or venturing far from home as long as social distancing is in effect and new outbreak will entrench the feelings of fear and insecurity. This will cause carnage in business and a surge in unemployment further depressing the economy. This seemed to be the view of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell but of course President Trump was having none of that.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
I don't get your explanation as to why JK is wrong in sitation 2. If a male perv wants to perv on young girls, surely it is easier if he can sit in female changing rooms than if he can't?
Because men already attack women in female only spaces. They do not need to self-identify as a woman.
If a woman attacks or abuses another woman in a female only space then she will still be prosecuted.
In other words the issue of self-identity is irrelevant in protecting women in female only spaces. Add to this that the vast majority of transwomen are not sexual predators and what you have is 99.9% of a group being victimised for the behaviour of 0.1%
I believe April in the UK saw a record breaking reduction in credit card and other short term personal debt.
Understandable if people were stuck at home and not going out to the shops to consume (buy things).
The problem is the economy needs us consuming buying, getting into personal debt, to keep going, The consequence of people stopping consuming is evident.
It's what many thought would happen in 2008 but didn't.
We are finally going to get the economic rebalancing we should have got ten years ago.
It had a 3% death rate, probably 3 times higher than the current best guess. But notably the real world has run ahead of this model, our deaths have been higher than a model which predicted 3% of the entire world dying by the end of Septmeber.
The 14th of June will finally see the model rocket ahead of reality and hopefully out of sight. By the end of the month the model will be hopelessly pessimistic.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
Thankyou. That certainly clarifies.
But part of my question remains: why TRANS?
I get why the legality of abortion, or homosexuality, became huge issues in the past. I get why Black Lives Matter matters now. They affected and affect large parts of the population. They are major and crucial human debates.
But, trans? It's about 0.1%? of the population? It seems indescribably picayune (whatever your position). Yet on social media people get so worked up, like it is the most important global issue of the day. Odd.
Monty Python were ahead of the curve:
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man-- STAN: Or woman. REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off. STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg. FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan? STAN: I want to be one. REG: What? STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'. REG: What?! LORETTA: It's my right as a man. JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? LORETTA: I want to have babies. REG: You want to have babies?! LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. REG: But... you can't have babies. LORETTA: Don't you oppress me. REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?! LORETTA: [crying] JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry. REG: What's the point? FRANCIS: What? REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?! FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
One suggests Covid-19 is analogous to a natural disaster - devastating in the short term but only briefly and life quickly returns to how it was before. The theory goes the middle classes in particular have done very nicely out of lockdown - working at home, still being paid and saving a fortune on commuting, lunches and the like. They have plenty of cash and want to go out and spend and they will allow the economy to rebound significantly in the rest of the year. This explains the stock market rallies - individuals and organisations sitting on piles of cash that gets no interest anywhere else can play the market instead.
The other scenario is Covid-19 has done serious long-term damage. Fear and changes of habits will mean people don't rush back to the shops but stay shopping online at home. People won't be commuting or venturing far from home as long as social distancing is in effect and new outbreak will entrench the feelings of fear and insecurity. This will cause carnage in business and a surge in unemployment further depressing the economy. This seemed to be the view of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell but of course President Trump was having none of that.
In reality it will be a bit of both.
The proportions will vary from place to place.
We've had a decade or more of low inflation, low unemployment , low interest rates and a shrinking deficit - all in all, not too bad. Productivity remains an issue however.
One suggests Covid-19 is analogous to a natural disaster - devastating in the short term but only briefly and life quickly returns to how it was before. The theory goes the middle classes in particular have done very nicely out of lockdown - working at home, still being paid and saving a fortune on commuting, lunches and the like. They have plenty of cash and want to go out and spend and they will allow the economy to rebound significantly in the rest of the year. This explains the stock market rallies - individuals and organisations sitting on piles of cash that gets no interest anywhere else can play the market instead.
The other scenario is Covid-19 has done serious long-term damage. Fear and changes of habits will mean people don't rush back to the shops but stay shopping online at home. People won't be commuting or venturing far from home as long as social distancing is in effect and new outbreak will entrench the feelings of fear and insecurity. This will cause carnage in business and a surge in unemployment further depressing the economy. This seemed to be the view of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell but of course President Trump was having none of that.
In reality it will be a bit of both.
The proportions will vary from place to place.
We've had a decade or more of low inflation, low unemployment , low interest rates and a shrinking deficit - all in all, not too bad. Productivity remains an issue however.
What's going to change and how?
Productivity stats will probably improve - though that won't be a good thing.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
Thankyou. That certainly clarifies.
But part of my question remains: why TRANS?
I get why the legality of abortion, or homosexuality, became huge issues in the past. I get why Black Lives Matter matters now. They affected and affect large parts of the population. They are major and crucial human debates.
But, trans? It's about 0.1%? of the population? It seems indescribably picayune (whatever your position). Yet on social media people get so worked up, like it is the most important global issue of the day. Odd.
The estimates of the number of people who are trans keep on being revised upwards either due to the increase in rights or as normal variation in behaviour is medicalised, depending on your point of view.
I think one of the things that really irks Rowling, as a writer, is the changes to language. Trans women are women, but women are now people who menstruate. She feels that men are stealing her identity from her - and calling her a cunt when she objects.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
Thankyou. That certainly clarifies.
But part of my question remains: why TRANS?
I get why the legality of abortion, or homosexuality, became huge issues in the past. I get why Black Lives Matter matters now. They affected and affect large parts of the population. They are major and crucial human debates.
But, trans? It's about 0.1%? of the population? It seems indescribably picayune (whatever your position). Yet on social media people get so worked up, like it is the most important global issue of the day. Odd.
The fight is so intense because the stakes are so low.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
Thankyou. That certainly clarifies.
But part of my question remains: why TRANS?
I get why the legality of abortion, or homosexuality, became huge issues in the past. I get why Black Lives Matter matters now. They affected and affect large parts of the population. They are major and crucial human debates.
But, trans? It's about 0.1%? of the population? It seems indescribably picayune (whatever your position). Yet on social media people get so worked up, like it is the most important global issue of the day. Odd.
Why trans? I cannot really answer that. I have a few trans friends and used to help out at a support group so I met dozens of transwomen. They had all sorts of theories:
1) For most people sex & gender are immutable and unchanging. Seeing someone "switch sides" undermines their own sense of security and identity. In short it blows their mind.
2) In the early stages, people transitioning are neither one gender nor the other. Some never blend in to the two pigeon-holes marked male / female and this makes non-trans folk uncomfortable and uneasy because they do not know how to react.
3) If you are a man and you have sex with a transwoman, are you really gay? What if she did not tell you she is trans? Is that a "deception" in a legal sense?
4) The religious. God made us as we are and we should not interfere. Of course, God also gave us the brains to interfere....
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
I don't get your explanation as to why JK is wrong in sitation 2. If a male perv wants to perv on young girls, surely it is easier if he can sit in female changing rooms than if he can't?
Because men already attack women in female only spaces. They do not need to self-identify as a woman.
If a woman attacks or abuses another woman in a female only space then she will still be prosecuted.
In other words the issue of self-identity is irrelevant in protecting women in female only spaces. Add to this that the vast majority of transwomen are not sexual predators and what you have is 99.9% of a group being victimised for the behaviour of 0.1%
It had a 3% death rate, probably 3 times higher than the current best guess. But notably the real world has run ahead of this model, our deaths have been higher than a model which predicted 3% of the entire world dying by the end of Septmeber.
The 14th of June will finally see the model rocket ahead of reality and hopefully out of sight. By the end of the month the model will be hopelessly pessimistic.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
Thankyou. That certainly clarifies.
But part of my question remains: why TRANS?
I get why the legality of abortion, or homosexuality, became huge issues in the past. I get why Black Lives Matter matters now. They affected and affect large parts of the population. They are major and crucial human debates.
But, trans? It's about 0.1%? of the population? It seems indescribably picayune (whatever your position). Yet on social media people get so worked up, like it is the most important global issue of the day. Odd.
The estimates of the number of people who are trans keep on being revised upwards either due to the increase in rights or as normal variation in behaviour is medicalised, depending on your point of view.
I think one of the things that really irks Rowling, as a writer, is the changes to language. Trans women are women, but women are now people who menstruate. She feels that men are stealing her identity from her - and calling her a cunt when she objects.
Agreed. On this point I Stand With Rowling.
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Sharron Davies gets untold stick too, for not wanting men to be breaking womens sporting world records.
Girls with ambition to compete at the highest level might as well not bother. What an earner if you are prepared to through with the op as a second rate male athelete
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
If there's one bit of the internet that makes me feel old, it's the trans argument. I just don't get it, on either side.
Why does it stir such intense and violent emotions? What is so exceptional about what JKRowling said? Why is she now hated?
I've tried to get my head around it, but largely failed.
Ms Rowling appears to have two issues according to a blogpost she published.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
like @eadric I havent really gotten involved in Trans battles. Male privilege I suppose.
The numbers identifying as Trans is increasing, and not just youngsters. I used to know a gender reassignment surgeon, and it rather surprised me how old a lot of his patients were. Perhaps it has always been under recognised.
I do wonder if there is some truth in point 1, and that young women, and men, who don't fit the stereotype of femininity or masculinity attract the label of being Trans rather than being just a different sort of female or male. It is a minefield.
One suggests Covid-19 is analogous to a natural disaster - devastating in the short term but only briefly and life quickly returns to how it was before. The theory goes the middle classes in particular have done very nicely out of lockdown - working at home, still being paid and saving a fortune on commuting, lunches and the like. They have plenty of cash and want to go out and spend and they will allow the economy to rebound significantly in the rest of the year. This explains the stock market rallies - individuals and organisations sitting on piles of cash that gets no interest anywhere else can play the market instead.
The other scenario is Covid-19 has done serious long-term damage. Fear and changes of habits will mean people don't rush back to the shops but stay shopping online at home. People won't be commuting or venturing far from home as long as social distancing is in effect and new outbreak will entrench the feelings of fear and insecurity. This will cause carnage in business and a surge in unemployment further depressing the economy. This seemed to be the view of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell but of course President Trump was having none of that.
In reality it will be a bit of both.
The proportions will vary from place to place.
We've had a decade or more of low inflation, low unemployment , low interest rates and a shrinking deficit - all in all, not too bad. Productivity remains an issue however.
What's going to change and how?
Don't know about that but there will be winners and losers.
It should be good time to be a skilled worker in an essential job who is looking to buy a house (especially in a city) and who's not too interested in foreign travel.
But pretty bad for people with the opposite attributes.
The people who should be thinking hard are teenagers as they consider what subjects to take and what careers to aim for.
The United States lost fewer people in World War One than they have so far to the Coronavirus pandemic.
According to Wikipedia the US deployed 4,743,826 military personnel during the Great War and a total of 116,708 were killed - 2.46% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
According to this source they have had 2,111,322 confirmed cases of Coronavirus to date (23.6million tests) with a total death toll so far of 116.717 -5.52% mostly civilians of course in this case.
like @eadric I havent really gotten involved in Trans battles. Male privilege I suppose.
The numbers identifying as Trans is increasing, and not just youngsters. I used to know a gender reassignment surgeon, and it rather surprised me how old a lot of his patients were. Perhaps it has always been under recognised.
I do wonder if there is some truth in point 1, and that young women, and men, who don't fit the stereotype of femininity or masculinity attract the label of being Trans rather than being just a different sort of female or male. It is a minefield.
Apparently for Male to Female transitioners, the "old" advice was to "man up, be a man, join the army, become a dad", but this never resolved the issues which fester away and like all untreated conditions, get worse and worse as time goes on. By the time that they could no longer cope many were in their mid-40s (I think 47 was the median age). Wives felt lied to for their whole marriage. Friends where dumbfounded and then hostile. Employers would often react very badly. Many transitioners have attempted suicide.
Yet in spite of all this, knowing it would happen, knowing that their lives would be shredded into tatters, these people still had to transition to a life that would be full of ridicule, less opportunities and ostracism.
In spite of all this there persists a belief that they chose this for a laugh or vicarious sexual thrills.
If the medical advice had been to transition earlier, a lot of lives would not have been ruined or turned upside down.
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
So "people that menstruate" is wrong as well?
To me it seems like angels on pin-heads.
Women are women, men are men, and there is a tiny minority which dance between the two (and should be allowed to do so, but without distorting society or endangering others).
And allowing or encouraging kids to medically "transition", in an unalterable way, is just child abuse.
That is not what I said. I said it is very hard to define "Woman" in a legal sense. It is equally hard to define "Man" for the similar reasons.
like @eadric I havent really gotten involved in Trans battles. Male privilege I suppose.
The numbers identifying as Trans is increasing, and not just youngsters. I used to know a gender reassignment surgeon, and it rather surprised me how old a lot of his patients were. Perhaps it has always been under recognised.
I do wonder if there is some truth in point 1, and that young women, and men, who don't fit the stereotype of femininity or masculinity attract the label of being Trans rather than being just a different sort of female or male. It is a minefield.
Apparently for Male to Female transitioners, the "old" advice was to "man up, be a man, join the army, become a dad", but this never resolved the issues which fester away and like all untreated conditions, get worse and worse as time goes on. By the time that they could no longer cope many were in their mid-40s (I think 47 was the median age). Wives felt lied to for their whole marriage. Friends where dumbfounded and then hostile. Employers would often react very badly. Many transitioners have attempted suicide.
Yet in spite of all this, knowing it would happen, knowing that their lives would be shredded into tatters, these people still had to transition to a life that would be full of ridicule, less opportunities and ostracism.
In spite of all this there persists a belief that they chose this for a laugh or vicarious sexual thrills.
If the medical advice had been to transition earlier, a lot of lives would not have been ruined or turned upside down.
Some people wish to differentiate between men who transition to become women and men who merely self-identify as women. Others think that they should be considered in the same way.
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
I don't have a problem with Ms Rowling having her say, nor with the people arguing against her, obviously violence and threats excluded.
The experience of feeling trapped in the wrong body is one quite alien to me. I am not even sure what to be a man feels like. What I do see is that Trans men seem to dress in a particular stereotype of masculinity, and Trans women ditto.
Undoubtably the life experience of being a Trans woman is different to being a cis woman, and a Trans man different to being a Cis man. It is not just the internal image of self, but the experience of growing up in a society of gender roles that makes us who we are.
Some men are rapists. Should we tar all men with the same brush?
Look hard enough and you can find bad-eggs in any group in society. I am sure that you can find train-spotters who have murdered people yet we are not banning trainspotters. etc etc etc.
Are you really proposing that any group should pay the penalty for what a small subset of that group do?
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
There was a case study in a medical journal recently of an individual who had XY chromosomes. They not only outwardly presented as female but had given birth to multiple children! The genetics we were taught in school is not the whole story.
As Beibheirli(?) says, once you start trying to define terms like "woman" in a strict legal sense, you open up a minefield: Whatever definition you pick will inevitably exclude a bunch of people who have seen themselves as women from birth.
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
So "people that menstruate" is wrong as well?
To me it seems like angels on pin-heads.
Women are women, men are men, and there is a tiny minority which dance between the two (and should be allowed to do so, but without distorting society or endangering others).
And allowing or encouraging kids to medically "transition", in an unalterable way, is just child abuse.
That is not what I said. I said it is very hard to define "Woman" in a legal sense. It is equally hard to define "Man" for the similar reasons.
Are there any lawyers in the house?
The Thai attitude seems wiser, to me. Yes there are men, and women, but there is a third, tiny, fluid gender, katoeys - ladyboys, and the like - and ideally they get their OWN loos, and plenty of respect
But the Thais would abhor irreversible operations or medications applied to kids, as is only right
I think that under the NHS system, they refuse surgery to any one under 18 (which still seems a very young age). As I said earlier, the support group I helped with were almost without exception over 40, so kids / younger transitioners was not a group I encountered.
It had a 3% death rate, probably 3 times higher than the current best guess. But notably the real world has run ahead of this model, our deaths have been higher than a model which predicted 3% of the entire world dying by the end of Septmeber.
The 14th of June will finally see the model rocket ahead of reality and hopefully out of sight. By the end of the month the model will be hopelessly pessimistic.
I am surprised that simplistic model has held so well for 5 months.
It is a terrible model with almost zero predictive power, up until now is had grossly under estimated deaths but now it is about to massively over estimate deaths.
The reason it held grim fascination to be was the ticktock inevitability of 3% of the world population by end of September it promised combined with reality having far more deaths than it up till now.
I've spent the last month and a half, if not more, thinking "this is the week that the model will start over predicting. And every week I've been wrong until now.
like @eadric I havent really gotten involved in Trans battles. Male privilege I suppose.
The numbers identifying as Trans is increasing, and not just youngsters. I used to know a gender reassignment surgeon, and it rather surprised me how old a lot of his patients were. Perhaps it has always been under recognised.
I do wonder if there is some truth in point 1, and that young women, and men, who don't fit the stereotype of femininity or masculinity attract the label of being Trans rather than being just a different sort of female or male. It is a minefield.
Apparently for Male to Female transitioners, the "old" advice was to "man up, be a man, join the army, become a dad", but this never resolved the issues which fester away and like all untreated conditions, get worse and worse as time goes on. By the time that they could no longer cope many were in their mid-40s (I think 47 was the median age). Wives felt lied to for their whole marriage. Friends where dumbfounded and then hostile. Employers would often react very badly. Many transitioners have attempted suicide.
Yet in spite of all this, knowing it would happen, knowing that their lives would be shredded into tatters, these people still had to transition to a life that would be full of ridicule, less opportunities and ostracism.
In spite of all this there persists a belief that they chose this for a laugh or vicarious sexual thrills.
If the medical advice had been to transition earlier, a lot of lives would not have been ruined or turned upside down.
Certainly all the Trans people that I have met have not done it lightly. I think on the whole the UK system handles it well, with psychological counselling, and extensive pharma treatment before surgery.
The only person who I have personally seen with a disastrous outcome was a gay man, who was rejected after psychological assessment for UK surgery, who went on to get the surgery done overseas. Several years later, and after a couple of episodes of self harm, surgically transitioned back to being a guy man.
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
There was a case study in a medical journal recently of an individual who had XY chromosomes. They not only outwardly presented as female but had given birth to multiple children! The genetics we were taught in school is not the whole story.
As Beibheirli(?) says, once you start trying to define terms like "woman" in a strict legal sense, you open up a minefield: Whatever definition you pick will inevitably exclude a bunch of people who have seen themselves as women from birth.
That is the whole nub of the problem.
There is also the converse problem. Women who look too masculine get abused as transitioners or even as "pervy men"
"A Detroit woman has filed a lawsuit against restaurant chain Fishbone's after a frightening incident in which she was mistaken for a man and tossed out of a women's bathroom, reports TV station WXYZ."
Some men are rapists. Should we tar all men with the same brush?
Look hard enough and you can find bad-eggs in any group in society. I am sure that you can find train-spotters who have murdered people yet we are not banning trainspotters. etc etc etc.
Are you really proposing that any group should pay the penalty for what a small subset of that group do?
From that article:
White entered the UK prison system as transgender. However, despite dressing as a woman, the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male.
Once the you know what have been removed, then fine. But not before.
Some men are rapists. Should we tar all men with the same brush?
Look hard enough and you can find bad-eggs in any group in society. I am sure that you can find train-spotters who have murdered people yet we are not banning trainspotters. etc etc etc.
Are you really proposing that any group should pay the penalty for what a small subset of that group do?
It’s classic in-group / out-group thinking. Unacceptable acts by a member of your in-group are perceived as being something to do with them as individuals - clearly there was something specific about them that made them do the bad thing & not anything about your personal in group. Meanwhile, unacceptable acts by a member of an out-group are seen as the responsibility of the out-group as a whole; often they’re depicted as representative of the true nature of the out-group.
(You see this kind of thinking everywhere once you know to look for it. Cyclists vs Drivers is a favourite of mine, but I’m sure we could come up with lots of others.)
ISAM’S example is a classic of the genre. A sociopath with a history of sexual assault should never have been allowed near vulnerable individuals & the prison service made a grave error in placing them where they did. Meanwhile, a bunch of trans women are currently placed in women’s prisons right now without it being a big deal.
White entered the UK prison system as transgender. However, despite dressing as a woman, the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male.
Once the you know what have been removed, then fine. But not before.
It would make more sense to base prison on biological "capability".
like @eadric I havent really gotten involved in Trans battles. Male privilege I suppose.
The numbers identifying as Trans is increasing, and not just youngsters. I used to know a gender reassignment surgeon, and it rather surprised me how old a lot of his patients were. Perhaps it has always been under recognised.
I do wonder if there is some truth in point 1, and that young women, and men, who don't fit the stereotype of femininity or masculinity attract the label of being Trans rather than being just a different sort of female or male. It is a minefield.
Apparently for Male to Female transitioners, the "old" advice was to "man up, be a man, join the army, become a dad", but this never resolved the issues which fester away and like all untreated conditions, get worse and worse as time goes on. By the time that they could no longer cope many were in their mid-40s (I think 47 was the median age). Wives felt lied to for their whole marriage. Friends where dumbfounded and then hostile. Employers would often react very badly. Many transitioners have attempted suicide.
Yet in spite of all this, knowing it would happen, knowing that their lives would be shredded into tatters, these people still had to transition to a life that would be full of ridicule, less opportunities and ostracism.
In spite of all this there persists a belief that they chose this for a laugh or vicarious sexual thrills.
If the medical advice had been to transition earlier, a lot of lives would not have been ruined or turned upside down.
Some people wish to differentiate between men who transition to become women and men who merely self-identify as women. Others think that they should be considered in the same way.
For me, personal opinion only, full legal recognition of your new gender should be the end of the journey, rather than the beginning. That would seem to sort a lot of these issues. I believe we have some trans members, their views would be really interesting to hear.
The United States lost fewer people in World War One than they have so far to the Coronavirus pandemic.
According to Wikipedia the US deployed 4,743,826 military personnel during the Great War and a total of 116,708 were killed - 2.46% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
According to this source they have had 2,111,322 confirmed cases of Coronavirus to date (23.6million tests) with a total death toll so far of 116.717 -5.52% mostly civilians of course in this case.
This death toll must, of course, be compared to the annual death toll in an enormous country.
The USA records nearly 3 million dead every year. So 116,000 isn't really that significant at all. Yet.
Most of those deaths occurred in a two month period, so the relevant benchmark is 500,000. If you can name anything else that has caused a near 25% increase in US deaths in recent years I'd be interested to hear it. To say this isn't significant is utterly absurd.
Don't know about that but there will be winners and losers.
It should be good time to be a skilled worker in an essential job who is looking to buy a house (especially in a city) and who's not too interested in foreign travel.
But pretty bad for people with the opposite attributes.
The people who should be thinking hard are teenagers as they consider what subjects to take and what careers to aim for.
The question is whether there has been a revolution - nothing to do with statues - but people working at home. Is this a temporary aberration or a permanent shift in working patterns?
120,000 office staff at Canary Wharf - if only 20% return that's a lot of empty real estate and support services that won't be economically viable.
If the age of mass commuting is over, how do transport providers manage with reduced passenger numbers?
If a town relies for its lunch business on office workers and those workers are at home, what does the bakery, the sandwich shop, the restaurant do?
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
There was a case study in a medical journal recently of an individual who had XY chromosomes. They not only outwardly presented as female but had given birth to multiple children! The genetics we were taught in school is not the whole story.
As Beibheirli(?) says, once you start trying to define terms like "woman" in a strict legal sense, you open up a minefield: Whatever definition you pick will inevitably exclude a bunch of people who have seen themselves as women from birth.
That is the whole nub of the problem.
There is also the converse problem. Women who look too masculine get abused as transitioners or even as "pervy men"
"A Detroit woman has filed a lawsuit against restaurant chain Fishbone's after a frightening incident in which she was mistaken for a man and tossed out of a women's bathroom, reports TV station WXYZ."
Sure, but it is numerically an absolutely tiny problem.
I have a friend who has been helicoptered to hospital because she buttered her gluten free toast with butter microcontaminated by a knife which had been used by a conventional toast eater. I have encountered a thousand wankers who have felt so much better since giving up wheat products that they just know they have a gluten intolerance, including one woman who, when I said she obviously wouldn't be eating the pasta, said pasta was fine, it was only *wheat* based food that was a problem. I find about the same ratio to obtain among the gender ambivalent.
I think that under the NHS system, they refuse surgery to any one under 18 (which still seems a very young age). As I said earlier, the support group I helped with were almost without exception over 40, so kids / younger transitioners was not a group I encountered.
There are some really disturbing stories on t'internet of mad parents allowing (encouraging?) unalterable operation/medications on kids as young as 13, 14, or even younger. Pubescent kids are sexually confused by nature, let them grow up first, and know their minds and bodies, before they do something they may regret. If they then feel the same way: good luck to them.
I hope they are rare; these things must surely be illegal.
I suspect you and I largely and easily agree, which might be a first for PB!
If this is happening (cite?) then it’s certainly not on the NHS. Any UK doctor carrying out such an operation privately would be risking being struck off in the current environment, surely?
There are some really disturbing stories on t'internet of mad parents allowing (encouraging?) unalterable operation/medications on kids as young as 13, 14, or even younger. Pubescent kids are sexually confused by nature, let them grow up first, and know their minds and bodies, before they do something they may regret. If they then feel the same way: good luck to them.
I hope they are rare; these things must surely be illegal.
I suspect you and I largely and easily agree, which might be a first for PB!
There have always been mad parents, and whilst parents are responsible for their children in a legal sense, they should not be altering their children's bodies to suit their own desires. In my opinion that would be child abuse and should be prosecuted as such. I would even extend that to FGM and male circumcision unless a team of medics said it was a necessary treatment for an acute condition.
And yes, I think we agree on this. Will PB survive the seismic shock?
like @eadric I havent really gotten involved in Trans battles. Male privilege I suppose.
The numbers identifying as Trans is increasing, and not just youngsters. I used to know a gender reassignment surgeon, and it rather surprised me how old a lot of his patients were. Perhaps it has always been under recognised.
I do wonder if there is some truth in point 1, and that young women, and men, who don't fit the stereotype of femininity or masculinity attract the label of being Trans rather than being just a different sort of female or male. It is a minefield.
Apparently for Male to Female transitioners, the "old" advice was to "man up, be a man, join the army, become a dad", but this never resolved the issues which fester away and like all untreated conditions, get worse and worse as time goes on. By the time that they could no longer cope many were in their mid-40s (I think 47 was the median age). Wives felt lied to for their whole marriage. Friends where dumbfounded and then hostile. Employers would often react very badly. Many transitioners have attempted suicide.
Yet in spite of all this, knowing it would happen, knowing that their lives would be shredded into tatters, these people still had to transition to a life that would be full of ridicule, less opportunities and ostracism.
In spite of all this there persists a belief that they chose this for a laugh or vicarious sexual thrills.
If the medical advice had been to transition earlier, a lot of lives would not have been ruined or turned upside down.
Some men are rapists. Should we tar all men with the same brush?
Look hard enough and you can find bad-eggs in any group in society. I am sure that you can find train-spotters who have murdered people yet we are not banning trainspotters. etc etc etc.
Are you really proposing that any group should pay the penalty for what a small subset of that group do?
From that article:
White entered the UK prison system as transgender. However, despite dressing as a woman, the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male.
Once the you know what have been removed, then fine. But not before.
Yes. That's my point about pervy men in women's changing rooms. The self identifying part... absolute nonsense.
To be honest I think it's all a bit weird, but the self identifying pre ops are not women, and to treat them so is ridiculous.
Sure, but it is numerically an absolutely tiny problem.
I have a friend who has been helicoptered to hospital because she buttered her gluten free toast with butter microcontaminated by a knife which had been used by a conventional toast eater. I have encountered a thousand wankers who have felt so much better since giving up wheat products that they just know they have a gluten intolerance, including one woman who, when I said she obviously wouldn't be eating the pasta, said pasta was fine, it was only *wheat* based food that was a problem. I find about the same ratio to obtain among the gender ambivalent.
It is a tiny problem unless you are the one suffering from it, then it takes on life-changing proportions.
(BTW - Mr C is gluten intolerant and, before you ask, had an intestinal biopsy to confirm coeliac disease)
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
So "people that menstruate" is wrong as well?
To me it seems like angels on pin-heads.
Women are women, men are men, and there is a tiny minority which dance between the two (and should be allowed to do so, but without distorting society or endangering others).
And allowing or encouraging kids to medically "transition", in an unalterable way, is just child abuse.
That is not what I said. I said it is very hard to define "Woman" in a legal sense. It is equally hard to define "Man" for the similar reasons.
Are there any lawyers in the house?
The Thai attitude seems wiser, to me. Yes there are men, and women, but there is a third, tiny, fluid gender, katoeys - ladyboys, and the like - and ideally they get their OWN loos, and plenty of respect
But the Thais would abhor irreversible operations or medications applied to kids, as is only right
I think that under the NHS system, they refuse surgery to any one under 18 (which still seems a very young age). As I said earlier, the support group I helped with were almost without exception over 40, so kids / younger transitioners was not a group I encountered.
There are some really disturbing stories on t'internet of mad parents allowing (encouraging?) unalterable operation/medications on kids as young as 13, 14, or even younger. Pubescent kids are sexually confused by nature, let them grow up first, and know their minds and bodies, before they do something they may regret. If they then feel the same way: good luck to them.
I hope they are rare; these things must surely be illegal.
I suspect you and I largely and easily agree, which might be a first for PB!
There have always been mad parents, and whilst parents are responsible for their children in a legal sense, they should not be altering their children's bodies to suit their own desires. In my opinion that would be child abuse and should be prosecuted as such. I would even extend that to FGM and male circumcision unless a team of medics said it was a necessary treatment for an acute condition.
And yes, I think we agree on this. Will PB survive the seismic shock?
I think that increasingly the age of presentation is lower, and the numbers increasing. The Gender unit quotes the English figures, but the mode of ages presenting is 15 years of age.
The United States lost fewer people in World War One than they have so far to the Coronavirus pandemic.
According to Wikipedia the US deployed 4,743,826 military personnel during the Great War and a total of 116,708 were killed - 2.46% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
According to this source they have had 2,111,322 confirmed cases of Coronavirus to date (23.6million tests) with a total death toll so far of 116.717 -5.52% mostly civilians of course in this case.
This death toll must, of course, be compared to the annual death toll in an enormous country.
The USA records nearly 3 million dead every year. So 116,000 isn't really that significant at all. Yet.
Precisely my point about the nonsense of comparing the absolute death toll of Brazil with the Uk when Brazil is another “enormous country”. I know consistency isn’t your strong point but you might have given it more than an hour.
It is. He's been clever so far but the idea of Churchill being put in a box (and Gandhi, and Mandela, for that matter) because London is scared of a mob is deeply dangerous for the Left. Not least because: this is happening precisely because the city is run by a cowardly twat of a Labour mayor, who encouraged the mob early on.
This must never be allowed to happen again. Churchill is a hill many many Britons will die on. If we cannot defend his memory, then we are fucked, our history and identity is trashed, and most Brits get it.
Does Starmer sense this?
The young left, who think themselves highly savvy manipulators of social media, have absolutely no idea how the media works or how most people think.
It is. He's been clever so far but the idea of Churchill being put in a box (and Gandhi, and Mandela, for that matter) because London is scared of a mob is deeply dangerous for the Left. Not least because: this is happening precisely because the city is run by a cowardly twat of a Labour mayor, who encouraged the mob early on.
This must never be allowed to happen again. Churchill is a hill many many Britons will die on. If we cannot defend his memory, then we are fucked, our history and identity is trashed, and most Brits get it.
Does Starmer sense this?
Nothing to do with Starmer, whatever PB Tories claim. He has condemned mob attacks on statues, and supports only legal means of revising public displays.
As a former member of the Deltic Preservation Society I can only say that this video makes me very happy. My only grumble is that at this speed I can't figure out which one it is. I am guessing D9009.
It is. He's been clever so far but the idea of Churchill being put in a box (and Gandhi, and Mandela, for that matter) because London is scared of a mob is deeply dangerous for the Left. Not least because: this is happening precisely because the city is run by a cowardly twat of a Labour mayor, who encouraged the mob early on.
This must never be allowed to happen again. Churchill is a hill many many Britons will die on. If we cannot defend his memory, then we are fucked, our history and identity is trashed, and most Brits get it.
Does Starmer sense this?
Nothing to do with Starmer, whatever PB Tories claim. He has condemned mob attacks on statues, and supports only legal means of revising public displays.
"Nothing to do with Starmer"
True. And can you imagine what would be happening this weekend if Corbyn and Abbott were in charge of Labour?
But still very risky for Starmer. He has a chance here to make sure middle england knows he understands them.
I think that increasingly the age of presentation is lower, and the numbers increasing. The Gender unit quotes the English figures, but the mode of ages presenting is 15 years of age.
That is quite a change from when I was involved. Interestingly, I note that it shows referrals and "... Includes referrals that were not accepted ..."
Back in the day I was told by one of the top bods at Charing Cross that only about 10% of referrals went on to surgery. I wonder what the modern equivalent figure is?
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
There was a case study in a medical journal recently of an individual who had XY chromosomes. They not only outwardly presented as female but had given birth to multiple children! The genetics we were taught in school is not the whole story.
As Beibheirli(?) says, once you start trying to define terms like "woman" in a strict legal sense, you open up a minefield: Whatever definition you pick will inevitably exclude a bunch of people who have seen themselves as women from birth.
That is the whole nub of the problem.
There is also the converse problem. Women who look too masculine get abused as transitioners or even as "pervy men"
"A Detroit woman has filed a lawsuit against restaurant chain Fishbone's after a frightening incident in which she was mistaken for a man and tossed out of a women's bathroom, reports TV station WXYZ."
Sure, but it is numerically an absolutely tiny problem.
I have a friend who has been helicoptered to hospital because she buttered her gluten free toast with butter microcontaminated by a knife which had been used by a conventional toast eater. I have encountered a thousand wankers who have felt so much better since giving up wheat products that they just know they have a gluten intolerance, including one woman who, when I said she obviously wouldn't be eating the pasta, said pasta was fine, it was only *wheat* based food that was a problem. I find about the same ratio to obtain among the gender ambivalent.
I don't have a dog in this fight but I think J K Rowling is being slightly misrepresented here.
She accepts genuine transwomen and transmen that have medically transitioned. Her concern was the move to make sex a wholly self-declaratory thing, without any real medical or psychological test or evidence, which could open up all sorts of women's-only spaces to infiltration and abuse.
She then wrote about her own experiences of abuse.
Anyone who thinks that some men wouldn't be interested in doing that doesn't know very much about men.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
Comments
That never ends well...
Then a nice clean and unsullied pair of hands can take over.
Because there's a massive difference between the two.
(The US reports GDP at an annualised rate, while in Europe - inc UK - GDP is reported on a quarter-over-quarter basis. So if an economy is growing at 3% a year, then it would be reported as 3% in the US, and 0.75% in Europe.)
Back at the end of January this tweet was posted with a laughably simplistic model for the coronavirus.
https://twitter.com/SolankeSanjay/status/1221807294926614528?s=19
It had a 3% death rate, probably 3 times higher than the current best guess. But notably the real world has run ahead of this model, our deaths have been higher than a model which predicted 3% of the entire world dying by the end of Septmeber.
The 14th of June will finally see the model rocket ahead of reality and hopefully out of sight. By the end of the month the model will be hopelessly pessimistic.
@eadric can breathe again.
Massively summarised and simplified...
1: Trans-men (Female -> Male). She seems to think that the medical establishment is mis-diagnosing cases and allowing too many transitions. It seems that she feels that many young women look to transition to escape the problems of being women.
2: Trans-women (Male -> Female). She appears to think that self-identification means that a pervert could say "I am a woman" and pop in to all-female spaces. The problem with this argument is two-fold: Pervs are gonna perv no matter what the law is. Also if (say) I did something intrusive or pervy in a female-only space, then being a woman would not stop me from being prosecuted.
One suggests Covid-19 is analogous to a natural disaster - devastating in the short term but only briefly and life quickly returns to how it was before. The theory goes the middle classes in particular have done very nicely out of lockdown - working at home, still being paid and saving a fortune on commuting, lunches and the like. They have plenty of cash and want to go out and spend and they will allow the economy to rebound significantly in the rest of the year. This explains the stock market rallies - individuals and organisations sitting on piles of cash that gets no interest anywhere else can play the market instead.
The other scenario is Covid-19 has done serious long-term damage. Fear and changes of habits will mean people don't rush back to the shops but stay shopping online at home. People won't be commuting or venturing far from home as long as social distancing is in effect and new outbreak will entrench the feelings of fear and insecurity. This will cause carnage in business and a surge in unemployment further depressing the economy. This seemed to be the view of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell but of course President Trump was having none of that.
Hillary 65.85 million votes
Trump 62.98 million votes.
*waves at @Philip_Thompson *
The problem is the economy needs us consuming buying, getting into personal debt, to keep going, The consequence of people stopping consuming is evident.
It's what many thought would happen in 2008 but didn't.
The proportions will vary from place to place.
If a woman attacks or abuses another woman in a female only space then she will still be prosecuted.
In other words the issue of self-identity is irrelevant in protecting women in female only spaces. Add to this that the vast majority of transwomen are not sexual predators and what you have is 99.9% of a group being victimised for the behaviour of 0.1%
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/media/evening-standard-editor-emily-sheffield-a4467886.html
ĺ I am surprised that simplistic model has held so well for 5 months.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
What's going to change and how?
I think one of the things that really irks Rowling, as a writer, is the changes to language. Trans women are women, but women are now people who menstruate. She feels that men are stealing her identity from her - and calling her a cunt when she objects.
1) For most people sex & gender are immutable and unchanging. Seeing someone "switch sides" undermines their own sense of security and identity. In short it blows their mind.
2) In the early stages, people transitioning are neither one gender nor the other. Some never blend in to the two pigeon-holes marked male / female and this makes non-trans folk uncomfortable and uneasy because they do not know how to react.
3) If you are a man and you have sex with a transwoman, are you really gay? What if she did not tell you she is trans? Is that a "deception" in a legal sense?
4) The religious. God made us as we are and we should not interfere. Of course, God also gave us the brains to interfere....
Find me a thousand!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison
Scientists still fretting over the 8th significant figure.
Girls with ambition to compete at the highest level might as well not bother. What an earner if you are prepared to through with the op as a second rate male athelete
https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/trans-woman-sets-cycling-world-record-sparking-huge-debate-about-gender-in-sport/
Lots of women never give birth.
Lots of women do not menstruate.
Lots of women grow significant facial hair
Some women have XY chromosomes
Some men have XX chromosomes
Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
The numbers identifying as Trans is increasing, and not just youngsters. I used to know a gender reassignment surgeon, and it rather surprised me how old a lot of his patients were. Perhaps it has always been under recognised.
I do wonder if there is some truth in point 1, and that young women, and men, who don't fit the stereotype of femininity or masculinity attract the label of being Trans rather than being just a different sort of female or male. It is a minefield.
It should be good time to be a skilled worker in an essential job who is looking to buy a house (especially in a city) and who's not too interested in foreign travel.
But pretty bad for people with the opposite attributes.
The people who should be thinking hard are teenagers as they consider what subjects to take and what careers to aim for.
A Grim Milestone
The United States lost fewer people in World War One than they have so far to the Coronavirus pandemic.
According to Wikipedia the US deployed 4,743,826 military personnel during the Great War and a total of 116,708 were killed - 2.46%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
According to this source they have had 2,111,322 confirmed cases of Coronavirus to date (23.6million tests) with a total death toll so far of 116.717 -5.52% mostly civilians of course in this case.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Yet in spite of all this, knowing it would happen, knowing that their lives would be shredded into tatters, these people still had to transition to a life that would be full of ridicule, less opportunities and ostracism.
In spite of all this there persists a belief that they chose this for a laugh or vicarious sexual thrills.
If the medical advice had been to transition earlier, a lot of lives would not have been ruined or turned upside down.
That's why annualized figures are silly.
https://thewanderlustkitchen.com/indian-mulligatawny-soup/
Are there any lawyers in the house?
The experience of feeling trapped in the wrong body is one quite alien to me. I am not even sure what to be a man feels like. What I do see is that Trans men seem to dress in a particular stereotype of masculinity, and Trans women ditto.
Undoubtably the life experience of being a Trans woman is different to being a cis woman, and a Trans man different to being a Cis man. It is not just the internal image of self, but the experience of growing up in a society of gender roles that makes us who we are.
Look hard enough and you can find bad-eggs in any group in society. I am sure that you can find train-spotters who have murdered people yet we are not banning trainspotters. etc etc etc.
Are you really proposing that any group should pay the penalty for what a small subset of that group do?
As Beibheirli(?) says, once you start trying to define terms like "woman" in a strict legal sense, you open up a minefield: Whatever definition you pick will inevitably exclude a bunch of people who have seen themselves as women from birth.
The reason it held grim fascination to be was the ticktock inevitability of 3% of the world population by end of September it promised combined with reality having far more deaths than it up till now.
I've spent the last month and a half, if not more, thinking "this is the week that the model will start over predicting. And every week I've been wrong until now.
The only person who I have personally seen with a disastrous outcome was a gay man, who was rejected after psychological assessment for UK surgery, who went on to get the surgery done overseas. Several years later, and after a couple of episodes of self harm, surgically transitioned back to being a guy man.
There is also the converse problem. Women who look too masculine get abused as transitioners or even as "pervy men"
"A Detroit woman has filed a lawsuit against restaurant chain Fishbone's after a frightening incident in which she was mistaken for a man and tossed out of a women's bathroom, reports TV station WXYZ."
https://www.advocate.com/business/2015/06/17/detroit-woman-kicked-out-restaurant-bathroom-looking-man-sues
White entered the UK prison system as transgender. However, despite dressing as a woman, the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male.
Once the you know what have been removed, then fine. But not before.
Not that that redeems it from being silly.
p.s. Snap OnlyLivingBoy!
V dangerous moment for Starmer.
(You see this kind of thinking everywhere once you know to look for it. Cyclists vs Drivers is a favourite of mine, but I’m sure we could come up with lots of others.)
ISAM’S example is a classic of the genre. A sociopath with a history of sexual assault should never have been allowed near vulnerable individuals & the prison service made a grave error in placing them where they did. Meanwhile, a bunch of trans women are currently placed in women’s prisons right now without it being a big deal.
120,000 office staff at Canary Wharf - if only 20% return that's a lot of empty real estate and support services that won't be economically viable.
If the age of mass commuting is over, how do transport providers manage with reduced passenger numbers?
If a town relies for its lunch business on office workers and those workers are at home, what does the bakery, the sandwich shop, the restaurant do?
There's a host of other questions.
I have a friend who has been helicoptered to hospital because she buttered her gluten free toast with butter microcontaminated by a knife which had been used by a conventional toast eater. I have encountered a thousand wankers who have felt so much better since giving up wheat products that they just know they have a gluten intolerance, including one woman who, when I said she obviously wouldn't be eating the pasta, said pasta was fine, it was only *wheat* based food that was a problem. I find about the same ratio to obtain among the gender ambivalent.
And yes, I think we agree on this. Will PB survive the seismic shock?
Brilliant.
To be honest I think it's all a bit weird, but the self identifying pre ops are not women, and to treat them so is ridiculous.
The sports element seems grossly unfair too
(BTW - Mr C is gluten intolerant and, before you ask, had an intestinal biopsy to confirm coeliac disease)
https://gids.nhs.uk/number-referrals
https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1271552707367755777
Once the football resumes everyone will forget about statues and the like.
True. And can you imagine what would be happening this weekend if Corbyn and Abbott were in charge of Labour?
But still very risky for Starmer. He has a chance here to make sure middle england knows he understands them.
Back in the day
Hat. Coat...
It is better than arguing about statues though
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/science/coronavirus-mutation-genetics-spike.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Hermaphroditus
She accepts genuine transwomen and transmen that have medically transitioned. Her concern was the move to make sex a wholly self-declaratory thing, without any real medical or psychological test or evidence, which could open up all sorts of women's-only spaces to infiltration and abuse.
She then wrote about her own experiences of abuse.
Anyone who thinks that some men wouldn't be interested in doing that doesn't know very much about men.