In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
You mean fuck one flavour of "democracy". Do you to win or not in the big strategic struggle of this century or piddle around?
There are arguments in favour of PR and arguments in favour of FPTP. I don't think it does those in favour of PR any good to argue that it gives better politicians who make better strategic decisions with respect to international political relationships.
It was, after all, the coalition that courted China.
It is not a case of "better" politicians. It is longer term strategies and partnerships that endure that would make the difference. Chopping and changing strategies every five years or worrying about the next election for the 2 years out of 5 is destructive of an enduring long term strategy. There have been some successes. NATO. The EU.
"Courting" China is not necessarily a mistake, though I would phrase it "engaging with" China. There are mutual interests and win/win opportunities. Rule of law and trade is a mutual interest. Challenging China on civil rights and democracy isn't.
Creative destruction is our strength not our weakness.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
Well it’s a beautiful warm sunny afternoon down here in darkest Cornwall, and as you’d expect the coast is heaving. I’d say people are generally making more of an effort to keep a distance than in the Cotswolds, but the hotel is full of narrow corridors and winding nooks and, apart from the statutory sanitiser by the door (which only a minority are using) they’ve pretty much given up. And so far the mask total is nil.
All the more justification as to why masks to be compulsory for shopping from next weekend
Those aren't solely pre-requisities of conservatism as I'm sure you realise.
Liberals are often people of great faith but sometimes none - patriotism or love for one's own country transcends ideology and the notion of "family" is again supported by liberals and socialists.
The relationships with the State may differ but I'd argue plenty of liberals and socialists would buy into the notions of faith, flag and family.
Yes but they are not necessary for socialism nor for liberalism unless of the most classically liberal kind
Again, not sure I'm agree. Aren't the competing ideologies of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, Marxism, anarchism and libertarianism (to name but six) all about relationships - the relationship of the individual to and with the State, the relationship of the State to communities and to wider society etc.
Conservatism defines those relationships in one way - the other ideologies do it differently. Some put the State as the primary body, others see the individual as the more important aspect.
Socialism relies on a dominant state, conservatism relies on a strong state and strong families, liberalism relies on the freedom of the individual
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
You don't disagree completely. We agree on the advantages of innovation.
From overall chaos comes anarchy - and you are not a anarchist. I agree chaos is good for progress within bounds. It is Darwinian. Out of mutations and resyntheses comes new forms that are fitter for purpose. Innovation.
But the chaos needs to be within the bounds of a overall framework of the rule of law, stable institutions and infrastructure. Political chaos is not helpful in providing a stable framework including long term global strategies and partnerships. Look at Trump. "From chaos comes progress" is just too simplistic.
Your GDP per capita is a snapshot of now. Just look at the trends.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
You mean fuck one flavour of "democracy". Do you to win or not in the big strategic struggle of this century or piddle around?
There are arguments in favour of PR and arguments in favour of FPTP. I don't think it does those in favour of PR any good to argue that it gives better politicians who make better strategic decisions with respect to international political relationships.
It was, after all, the coalition that courted China.
It is not a case of "better" politicians. It is longer term strategies and partnerships that endure that would make the difference. Chopping and changing strategies every five years or worrying about the next election for the 2 years out of 5 is destructive of an enduring long term strategy. There have been some successes. NATO. The EU.
"Courting" China is not necessarily a mistake, though I would phrase it "engaging with" China. There are mutual interests and win/win opportunities. Rule of law and trade is a mutual interest. Challenging China on civil rights and democracy isn't.
Creative destruction is our strength not our weakness.
Too simplistic. Sounds Trumpian. But I agree it has its place in markets.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
And scale was important in a standard widget-production economy - it is much less so, or even irrelevant, in a personalized knowledge economy.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
And scale was important in a standard widget-production economy - it is much less so, or even irrelevant, in a personalized knowledge economy.
Solar panels. Facebook. Alibaba. Amazon. Scale matters to all of them.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Not quite - the lose against West Ham on Friday means they are the most likely losers if Aston Villa or Bournemouth achieve a miracle...
I can't see Villa getting anything else between now and the end of the season and Bournemouth don't look like they could buy a point.
That said, the more rubbish sides left in the Premiership the better for me. Although I am not entirely convinced the Baggies will get the 3 points we need against QPR on Wednesday.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
It shouldn't be compulsory to 'go all the way', but until you possess the plumbing of your reassigned gender, you don't get to use the lavatories. I don't see why that concept is so distressing. Those who currently live as their reassigned gender and don't feel comfortable using the a loo that doesn't fit their appearance, should have dispensation to use the disabled loos. We are brilliant at making simple things complex.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
We don't need to have these debates, we need to stop getting into them.
Starmer started really well and now he's going back on himself. Bit worrying.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
That will entail you standing up to the UltraWoke types, further to your Left.
USA Dem Veep Slot -- Susan Rice now into 5/2 on Betfair; 4/1 with PaddyPower; 7/2 elsewhere. ETA 3/1 Ladbrokes and hope for a boost!
Just re-read (or re-glanced at) Susan Rice's Wikipedia page. Not only was she a Rhodes Scholar when she would have overlapped with Boris, but she was a McKinsey consultant, like William Hague. (Pedants will remark that Boris was also a management consultant but as he lasted less than a week, I'm not sure it counts.)
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Great post.
TOPPING !!
I don't get that kind of reaction
lol - sorry.
Thing is, running joke, I've been trying to get a (non sarcastic) "Great Post" from @TOPPING (who's a tory let's remember albeit with a modicum of social conscience) since November 2018.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
We don't need to have these debates, we need to stop getting into them.
Starmer started really well and now he's going back on himself. Bit worrying.
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
My Dad looked at turning it into student accommodation...
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
We don't need to have these debates, we need to stop getting into them.
Starmer started really well and now he's going back on himself. Bit worrying.
Is he going back on himself? How do you mean?
The bias training stuff was so completely pointless and unnecessary
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
It shouldn't be compulsory to 'go all the way', but until you possess the plumbing of your reassigned gender, you don't get to use the lavatories. I don't see why that concept is so distressing. Those who currently live as their reassigned gender and don't feel comfortable using the a loo that doesn't fit their appearance, should have dispensation to use the disabled loos. We are brilliant at making simple things complex.
Trans people - pre op, post op, no op - have been using their preferred toilets for decades. There is no genuine and practical reason to change this and no way to police it if it were to be changed. This is a non-problem and thus requires no solution.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Great post.
TOPPING !!
I don't get that kind of reaction
lol - sorry.
Thing is, running joke, I've been trying to get a (non sarcastic) "Great Post" from @TOPPING (who's a tory let's remember albeit with a modicum of social conscience) since November 2018.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
I've stayed in this hotel - the "priory" of Fontevraud Abbey.
That website is a bit coy about the real history. The bedrooms in the hotel were, centuries ago, used as accommodation for lepers.
And in the Second World War the Nazis used the same rooms to imprison Resistance fighters, Jews, gays, spies, and so on, who were tortured in the basement and shot in the courtyard.
The atmosphere is "interesting"
However I thoroughly recommend a visit because, as a hotel guest, you are allowed to wander around the entire abbey complex 24/7.
At 2 in the morning, with moonlight streaming through the abbey windows, I was alone in the silvery nave, staring at the graven faces of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart. Superb.
Have you ever been to the Nissim de Camondo? It has a really heavy atmosphere - you can feel the grief and desolation in the air which is all the more striking for its comparison to my favourite museum the Jacquemart-André
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Great post.
TOPPING !!
I don't get that kind of reaction
lol - sorry.
Thing is, running joke, I've been trying to get a (non sarcastic) "Great Post" from @TOPPING (who's a tory let's remember albeit with a modicum of social conscience) since November 2018.
Only way is down now - I ought to call it a day.
Aim for the stars.
@TOPPING Complimented one of my posts recently, Christmas came early!
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
You mean fuck one flavour of "democracy". Do you to win or not in the big strategic struggle of this century or piddle around?
There are arguments in favour of PR and arguments in favour of FPTP. I don't think it does those in favour of PR any good to argue that it gives better politicians who make better strategic decisions with respect to international political relationships.
It was, after all, the coalition that courted China.
It is not a case of "better" politicians. It is longer term strategies and partnerships that endure that would make the difference. Chopping and changing strategies every five years or worrying about the next election for the 2 years out of 5 is destructive of an enduring long term strategy. There have been some successes. NATO. The EU.
"Courting" China is not necessarily a mistake, though I would phrase it "engaging with" China. There are mutual interests and win/win opportunities. Rule of law and trade is a mutual interest. Challenging China on civil rights and democracy isn't.
Creative destruction is our strength not our weakness.
Too simplistic. Sounds Trumpian. But I agree it has its place in markets.
I agree. Just slightly too cerebral and borderline coherent to be "Trumpian" though.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Great post.
TOPPING !!
I don't get that kind of reaction
lol - sorry.
Thing is, running joke, I've been trying to get a (non sarcastic) "Great Post" from @TOPPING (who's a tory let's remember albeit with a modicum of social conscience) since November 2018.
Only way is down now - I ought to call it a day.
Aim for the stars.
@TOPPING Complimented one of my posts recently, Christmas came early!
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
I've stayed in this hotel - the "priory" of Fontevraud Abbey.
That website is a bit coy about the real history. The bedrooms in the hotel were, centuries ago, used as accommodation for lepers.
And in the Second World War the Nazis used the same rooms to imprison Resistance fighters, Jews, gays, spies, and so on, who were tortured in the basement and shot in the courtyard.
The atmosphere is "interesting"
However I thoroughly recommend a visit because, as a hotel guest, you are allowed to wander around the entire abbey complex 24/7.
At 2 in the morning, with moonlight streaming through the abbey windows, I was alone in the silvery nave, staring at the graven faces of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart. Superb.
Have you ever been to the Nissim de Camondo? It has a really heavy atmosphere - you can feel the grief and desolation in the air which is all the more striking for its comparison to my favourite museum the Jacquemart-André
Fascinating. Never been; shall go. All that wealth and they still die at Auschwitz.
You get the same brooding atmosphere at Castle Drogo, "the last castle built in Britain". It's a masterpiece by Lutyens, built for the hugely wealthy Drewe family, but the house sobs with sadness, because at its core is the bedroom of a beloved son and heir, killed in the trenches. They kept the room exactly as it was; the father lost all interest in life, or his amazing home, once the son was dead.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Great post.
TOPPING !!
I don't get that kind of reaction
lol - sorry.
Thing is, running joke, I've been trying to get a (non sarcastic) "Great Post" from @TOPPING (who's a tory let's remember albeit with a modicum of social conscience) since November 2018.
Only way is down now - I ought to call it a day.
Aim for the stars.
@TOPPING Complimented one of my posts recently, Christmas came early!
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
We don't need to have these debates, we need to stop getting into them.
Starmer started really well and now he's going back on himself. Bit worrying.
Is he going back on himself? How do you mean?
The bias training stuff was so completely pointless and unnecessary
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
It seems a dubious measure. Undoubtedly governments have literally murdered their own people. But then there's government policy. How many COVID-19 deaths will be blamed on our government in the end?
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
Incredible that Taiwan has a GDP per capita so much higher than the UK.
70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.
If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.
I haven’t seen regional stats for China but I suspect that the coastal cities do well and the other parts of the country are breadline
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
It seems a dubious measure. Undoubtedly governments have literally murdered their own people. But then there's government policy. How many COVID-19 deaths will be blamed on our government in the end?
I've got Covid down as a natural disaster, UK Gov't hasn't been brilliant but it's not a great leap forward.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
You mean fuck one flavour of "democracy". Do you to win or not in the big strategic struggle of this century or piddle around?
There are arguments in favour of PR and arguments in favour of FPTP. I don't think it does those in favour of PR any good to argue that it gives better politicians who make better strategic decisions with respect to international political relationships.
It was, after all, the coalition that courted China.
It is not a case of "better" politicians. It is longer term strategies and partnerships that endure that would make the difference. Chopping and changing strategies every five years or worrying about the next election for the 2 years out of 5 is destructive of an enduring long term strategy. There have been some successes. NATO. The EU.
"Courting" China is not necessarily a mistake, though I would phrase it "engaging with" China. There are mutual interests and win/win opportunities. Rule of law and trade is a mutual interest. Challenging China on civil rights and democracy isn't.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
It seems a dubious measure. Undoubtedly governments have literally murdered their own people. But then there's government policy. How many COVID-19 deaths will be blamed on our government in the end?
I've got Covid down as a natural disaster, UK Gov't hasn't been brilliant but it's not a great leap forward.
We used to get told off at university for saying "natural disaster"!
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
Incredible that Taiwan has a GDP per capita so much higher than the UK.
70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.
If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.
I haven’t seen regional stats for China but I suspect that the coastal cities do well and the other parts of the country are breadline
China's population is overwhelmingly concentrated in the coastal regions.
Given that the sea level is set to rise by about 60m as the ice caps melt, it might make sense to move parliament permanently to the Midlands. Granted, this will take a few thousand years, but why not get ahead of the curve and make Birmingham the capital of the current British Isles and future British Archipelago now?
But it is Birmingham.
Do we want our Parliamentarians to end up having Brummie accents?
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
That will entail you standing up to the UltraWoke types, further to your Left.
Are you prepared to do that? Brave.
If it genuinely requires great courage I will not be doing it. But I think I'm up to trading tweets with Aaron Bastani.
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
The Mongol conquests and the Mughal invasion of India also had a massive death toll. World War Two killed 60-120m.
War is pretty bloody.
I've never even heard of the second war on this list? The war of the Three Kingdoms? Killed 40 million?!
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Great post.
TOPPING !!
I don't get that kind of reaction
lol - sorry.
Thing is, running joke, I've been trying to get a (non sarcastic) "Great Post" from @TOPPING (who's a tory let's remember albeit with a modicum of social conscience) since November 2018.
Only way is down now - I ought to call it a day.
Aim for the stars.
@TOPPING Complimented one of my posts recently, Christmas came early!
Nonsense. Good posts are good posts.
I was being nice? Sorry for any offence caused
No offence taken! Good posts are one of the pleasures of PB.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
OK. But I'd be surprised if she opposes moves to make the process a bit quicker and less harrowing. Course, people have all sorts of opinions and this will be as true of trans people as anybody else. There were homosexuals opposed to the practice of it being legalized. There are mysogynistic women. There are black people who are prejudiced against blacks.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
And scale was important in a standard widget-production economy - it is much less so, or even irrelevant, in a personalized knowledge economy.
Solar panels. Facebook. Alibaba. Amazon. Scale matters to all of them.
Solar panels are widget production. The rest are all networks and so natural monopolies. Both production and networks will still exist in future economies, but they will not form the vast bulk of economic production as they have in the past, and profits will eventually be squeezed by either competition or regulation. The rest of the economy will be bespoke, and that is where the higher profit margins will be.
Just watching the footie. Is someone mixing the crowd noise in real time?
That has been done since the re-start. The best one is when they recreate the cheer from the fans who think they've scored only for the other fans to realise that it hit the side netting and you get the "aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!" noise.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
Incredible that Taiwan has a GDP per capita so much higher than the UK.
70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.
If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.
I haven’t seen regional stats for China but I suspect that the coastal cities do well and the other parts of the country are breadline
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
Weak or no government of course means no NHS, a weak and ineffective police force and a weak army, meaning reduced access to healthcare, greater crime and higher murder rates and higher chance of invasion
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
That will entail you standing up to the UltraWoke types, further to your Left.
Are you prepared to do that? Brave.
If it genuinely requires great courage I will not be doing it. But I think I'm up to trading tweets with Aaron Bastani.
It depends where you work, if you work, and whether you do this in your real name.
I believe if you said some of this sensible stuff, and you worked in journalism, publishing, other media, you could get fired.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
We don't need to have these debates, we need to stop getting into them.
Starmer started really well and now he's going back on himself. Bit worrying.
Nah! So long as he doesn't kneel down again, he'll be fine.
Just watching the footie. Is someone mixing the crowd noise in real time?
That has been done since the re-start. The best one is when they recreate the cheer from the fans who think they've scored only for the other fans to realise that it hit the side netting and you get the "aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!" noise.
It's pretty good and yes I knew they had a track since the restart but to start with it was pretty uniform but this sounds more pro-active so I wasn't sure how real time it was now.
Although apparently not having the crowd noise is good for the chat and advice all of which you can hear.
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
I still find it hard to comprehend why its ok to be a communist or socialist which had a death toll ten times that of fascism but not ok to be a fascist. For record I am not arguing fascism be given credence here more arguing that communism and socialism should be treated with the same contempt.
If a conservative shadow chancellor tossed mein kampf at a labour governement in the commons there would quite rightly be uproar Yet McDonnel chucks a copy of Mao's little red book who alone killed at conservative estimates around 20 million and its all lmao from the left and media
There's a lot of stuff on birth certificates that doesn't need to be there - on mine there's father's job, but not mother's job, and mother's place of residence, not father's place of residence. What would happen if we stripped down birth certificates to remove those things and gender?
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
I still find it hard to comprehend why its ok to be a communist or socialist which had a death toll ten times that of fascism but not ok to be a fascist. For record I am not arguing fascism be given credence here more arguing that communism and socialism should be treated with the same contempt.
If a conservative shadow chancellor tossed mein kampf at a labour governement in the commons there would quite rightly be uproar Yet McDonnel chucks a copy of Mao's little red book who alone killed at conservative estimates around 20 million and its all lmao from the left and media
Socialism relies on a dominant state, conservatism relies on a strong state and strong families, liberalism relies on the freedom of the individual
This is why I consider myself a liberal rather than a socialist or a conservative. I don't think a "dominant" State as helpful and or am I enamoured of a "strong" State.
The State has a role but decision-making should be at the lowest level. Ideally the State should be an enabler for individual enterprise, local initiatives supporting communities and their aspirations. I do accept in issues like planning there's a fine balance between the requirements of local communities and the needs of the country as a whole.
Just watching the footie. Is someone mixing the crowd noise in real time?
You can watch it online if you don't want the crowd noise (or press the red button if you're watching it on ordinary TV). Can't do that for the cricket though (which really pisses me off)
There's a lot of stuff on birth certificates that doesn't need to be there - on mine there's father's job, but not mother's job, and mother's place of residence, not father's place of residence. What would happen if we stripped down birth certificates to remove those things and gender?
No one (is supposed to) ask your age any more for eg jobs.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
I don't think most women worry so much about the toilet issue but most I know are definitely against self declared trans women sharing changing rooms with them. My boss at work is very woke to the point I try and avoid speaking to her because she finds offence where none is intended but when I said to her "Oh so you would be ok with it if I decided to declare myself female and walked into your changing rooms at the pool" . Her response was basically that wouldn't be ok with her because she would know I didn't really think of myself as female.....well yes rather the point....for those that enjoy naked woman there is an incentive if you are brazen enough to just go in the womens changing room. It must be a flashers dream come true he can wander around stark bollock naked and if anyone complains just tell them "Hey but I feel like I am a women"
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
I still find it hard to comprehend why its ok to be a communist or socialist which had a death toll ten times that of fascism but not ok to be a fascist. For record I am not arguing fascism be given credence here more arguing that communism and socialism should be treated with the same contempt.
If a conservative shadow chancellor tossed mein kampf at a labour governement in the commons there would quite rightly be uproar Yet McDonnel chucks a copy of Mao's little red book who alone killed at conservative estimates around 20 million and its all lmao from the left and media
Because the fundamental doctrine of fascism is negative and xenophobic, whereas Marxism sets out to be righteous and good, it just seldom turns out that way.
They’ve got to go for it. Even a lead of 250 gives them a reasonable chance of winning the game, whereas a draw means they won’t win the series. Doesn’t really require great consideration.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
That will entail you standing up to the UltraWoke types, further to your Left.
Are you prepared to do that? Brave.
If it genuinely requires great courage I will not be doing it. But I think I'm up to trading tweets with Aaron Bastani.
It depends where you work, if you work, and whether you do this in your real name.
I believe if you said some of this sensible stuff, and you worked in journalism, publishing, other media, you could get fired.
I don't for one moment think I'd be fired from any job - other than Head of Comms for "Instant Self ID Now!" plc - on account of what I've written about trans on this thread or anywhere else. And that right there is the key difference between us. So either I'm being complacent or you're being hyperbolic. I wonder which is more true?
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
I still find it hard to comprehend why its ok to be a communist or socialist which had a death toll ten times that of fascism but not ok to be a fascist. For record I am not arguing fascism be given credence here more arguing that communism and socialism should be treated with the same contempt.
If a conservative shadow chancellor tossed mein kampf at a labour governement in the commons there would quite rightly be uproar Yet McDonnel chucks a copy of Mao's little red book who alone killed at conservative estimates around 20 million and its all lmao from the left and media
Mao killed way more than 20m.
Also - and this is overlooked - he was personally a monster. Depraved and debauched.
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
I still find it hard to comprehend why its ok to be a communist or socialist which had a death toll ten times that of fascism but not ok to be a fascist. For record I am not arguing fascism be given credence here more arguing that communism and socialism should be treated with the same contempt.
If a conservative shadow chancellor tossed mein kampf at a labour governement in the commons there would quite rightly be uproar Yet McDonnel chucks a copy of Mao's little red book who alone killed at conservative estimates around 20 million and its all lmao from the left and media
Because the fundamental doctrine of fascism is negative and xenophobic, whereas Marxism sets out to be righteous and good, it just seldom turns out that way.
I am not sure fascism as an ideology rather than the third reichs version is either negative or xenophobic merely nationalistic and totalitarian but like stalin I am sure they believed they are creating a better world. You or I probably wouldn't like that world but then I wouldn't like a communist or socialist world either. I haven't studied it as an ideology. Perhaps fascists should just use the normal excuse communists and socialists trot out....It wasnt really fascism Hitler just claimed it was.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
And scale was important in a standard widget-production economy - it is much less so, or even irrelevant, in a personalized knowledge economy.
Solar panels. Facebook. Alibaba. Amazon. Scale matters to all of them.
Solar panels are widget production. The rest are all networks and so natural monopolies. Both production and networks will still exist in future economies, but they will not form the vast bulk of economic production as they have in the past, and profits will eventually be squeezed by either competition or regulation. The rest of the economy will be bespoke, and that is where the higher profit margins will be.
There are economies of scale in bespoke such as the assembling of components (material, software, algorithms) to provide a bespoke result. The ads on your facebook account are bespoke but there is an economy of scale behind it. Bespoke pharmaceuticals will depend on genetic production facilities with economies of scale.
Don't confuse bespoke with tailoring or tattooing.
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
I still find it hard to comprehend why its ok to be a communist or socialist which had a death toll ten times that of fascism but not ok to be a fascist. For record I am not arguing fascism be given credence here more arguing that communism and socialism should be treated with the same contempt.
If a conservative shadow chancellor tossed mein kampf at a labour governement in the commons there would quite rightly be uproar Yet McDonnel chucks a copy of Mao's little red book who alone killed at conservative estimates around 20 million and its all lmao from the left and media
Mao killed way more than 20m.
Also - and this is overlooked - he was personally a monster. Depraved and debauched.
I did say it was a conservative estimate.....didn't want Corbyn coming round to explain in detail why I was wrong and Mao was an angel and those deaths were caused merely by the happiness that communism had at last triumphed
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Completely agree mate. Great post.
Cheers thanks. We - the left - need to move this one away from outre ideology and onto practicalities. If we can do this (but can we?) it will leave the other side looking unreasonable and ignorant and prejudiced if they continue as they are now.
That will entail you standing up to the UltraWoke types, further to your Left.
Are you prepared to do that? Brave.
If it genuinely requires great courage I will not be doing it. But I think I'm up to trading tweets with Aaron Bastani.
It depends where you work, if you work, and whether you do this in your real name.
I believe if you said some of this sensible stuff, and you worked in journalism, publishing, other media, you could get fired.
I don't for one moment think I'd be fired from any job - other than Head of Comms for "Instant Self ID Now!" plc - on account of what I've written about trans on this thread or anywhere else. And that right there is the key difference between us. So either I'm being complacent or you're being hyperbolic. I wonder which is more true?
I said "could"
It is hard to know the consequences for sure, because this war is so strange and the rules so obscure, and they change every day. Making it a minefield.
My guess is that you would be in trouble in some bien pensant media jobs, or the charity sector/academe, for saying these things:
"There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary."
"Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport – are better founded and require some rules."
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
I don't think most women worry so much about the toilet issue but most I know are definitely against self declared trans women sharing changing rooms with them. My boss at work is very woke to the point I try and avoid speaking to her because she finds offence where none is intended but when I said to her "Oh so you would be ok with it if I decided to declare myself female and walked into your changing rooms at the pool" . Her response was basically that wouldn't be ok with her because she would know I didn't really think of myself as female.....well yes rather the point....for those that enjoy naked woman there is an incentive if you are brazen enough to just go in the womens changing room. It must be a flashers dream come true he can wander around stark bollock naked and if anyone complains just tell them "Hey but I feel like I am a women"
Masquerading as trans to cop an eyeful? That's an outlier situation. We shouldn't frame a law which would be damaging and impractical around that.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
Well it’s a beautiful warm sunny afternoon down here in darkest Cornwall, and as you’d expect the coast is heaving. I’d say people are generally making more of an effort to keep a distance than in the Cotswolds, but the hotel is full of narrow corridors and winding nooks and, apart from the statutory sanitiser by the door (which only a minority are using) they’ve pretty much given up. And so far the mask total is nil.
All the more justification as to why masks to be compulsory for shopping from next weekend
It's cafes, pubs and restaurants here, though, and relatively few shops.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
I was supporting your original post with irony.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim you said.
Nor should you change species on a whim. Even worse!
Comments
Just one point of view. But interesting.
From overall chaos comes anarchy - and you are not a anarchist.
I agree chaos is good for progress within bounds. It is Darwinian. Out of mutations and resyntheses comes new forms that are fitter for purpose. Innovation.
But the chaos needs to be within the bounds of a overall framework of the rule of law, stable institutions and infrastructure. Political chaos is not helpful in providing a stable framework including long term global strategies and partnerships. Look at Trump. "From chaos comes progress" is just too simplistic.
Your GDP per capita is a snapshot of now. Just look at the trends.
However, the phrase "beautiful world wars" is so unhinged it is profoundly poetic.
That said, the more rubbish sides left in the Premiership the better for me. Although I am not entirely convinced the Baggies will get the 3 points we need against QPR on Wednesday.
Savage
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-19/uk-to-let-world-know-about-russias-reprehensible-behaviour-says-dominic-raab
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-19/foreign-secretary-dominic-raab-accuses-china-of-gross-human-rights-abuses-against-uighur-muslims
Starmer started really well and now he's going back on himself. Bit worrying.
Are you prepared to do that? Brave.
Thing is, running joke, I've been trying to get a (non sarcastic) "Great Post" from @TOPPING (who's a tory let's remember albeit with a modicum of social conscience) since November 2018.
Only way is down now - I ought to call it a day.
Well I support the right to protest. I also have the right to call these people morons
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Have you ever been to the Nissim de Camondo? It has a really heavy atmosphere - you can feel the grief and desolation in the air which is all the more striking for its comparison to my favourite museum the Jacquemart-André
https://twitter.com/bbcscotlandnews/status/1284887845166026752?s=21
At least they didn't need to go far to test and trace.
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
You get the same brooding atmosphere at Castle Drogo, "the last castle built in Britain". It's a masterpiece by Lutyens, built for the hugely wealthy Drewe family, but the house sobs with sadness, because at its core is the bedroom of a beloved son and heir, killed in the trenches. They kept the room exactly as it was; the father lost all interest in life, or his amazing home, once the son was dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Drogo
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
War is pretty bloody.
I've never even heard of the second war on this list? The war of the Three Kingdoms? Killed 40 million?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
I believe if you said some of this sensible stuff, and you worked in journalism, publishing, other media, you could get fired.
Although apparently not having the crowd noise is good for the chat and advice all of which you can hear.
If a conservative shadow chancellor tossed mein kampf at a labour governement in the commons there would quite rightly be uproar
Yet McDonnel chucks a copy of Mao's little red book who alone killed at conservative estimates around 20 million and its all lmao from the left and media
The State has a role but decision-making should be at the lowest level. Ideally the State should be an enabler for individual enterprise, local initiatives supporting communities and their aspirations. I do accept in issues like planning there's a fine balance between the requirements of local communities and the needs of the country as a whole.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
Also - and this is overlooked - he was personally a monster. Depraved and debauched.
Don't confuse bespoke with tailoring or tattooing.
It is hard to know the consequences for sure, because this war is so strange and the rules so obscure, and they change every day. Making it a minefield.
My guess is that you would be in trouble in some bien pensant media jobs, or the charity sector/academe, for saying these things:
"There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary."
"Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport – are better founded and require some rules."
An example of an argument over this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/action-aid-embroiled-trans-row-declaring-no-thing-biological/
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim you said.
Nor should you change species on a whim. Even worse!