Downing St’s decision on Friday to pick a fight with Cummings — identifying him as an alleged leaker — has created an asymmetric fight between an ex-adviser with plenty of secrets to tell & little to lose and the holder of the highest office in the land.
Now, I too wouldn't believe what Cummings said. But what he's written contains not just opinions but a recollection of events as 'facts'.
I can guarantee that if what Cummings has written is factually incorrect then the PM's office would have come out all guns blazing to shoot it down over the last 24 hours. As far as I know, they haven't. Which suggests.....?
Just read through that. Of course Johnson being an extremely deceitful individual is to some extent "priced in" (as they say), nevertheless it's pretty devastating. I have some quite big (for me) bets running on him still being PM on 1st July 2022. For the first time I'm starting to consider whether I should close out and take the profit.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Nah, as soon as a boy picks up a Barbie it's time to ship them off to the Tavistock centre so they can be brainwashed.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I thought so. Your comment was really about you signalling your superiority.
And it's not too clever.
My great aunt knitted my sister a lovely doll that was of a different ethnicity...
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Nah, as soon as a boy picks up a Barbie it's time to ship them off to the Tavistock centre so they can be brainwashed.
Kids pick up attitudes from conversations and observations of their peers and parents. My daughter knows the difference between a boy and girl - basically they spot there are "differences" when having their nappy changed in nursery - but otherwise don't see its relevance. Similarly, they have zero awareness of race - other than as they might hair colour - and all that stuff comes much later.
There's so much tendentious bullshit around subliminal influences making the difference when they're 18 months old, or so, but it's just that - bullshit.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I thought so. Your comment was really about you signalling your superiority.
And it's not too clever.
My great aunt knitted my sister a lovely doll that was of a different ethnicity...
My daughter's favourite doll is a "ginger boy" - which is the gingerbread boy - and a raccoon.
UK has given a first dose to 64% of adults, should reach 70% maybe around May 7. EU is still unclear on its calendar. Latest statement seems to indicate enough doses will be available end of July but target likely reached in September, ~ 4 months after UK
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Nah, as soon as a boy picks up a Barbie it's time to ship them off to the Tavistock centre so they can be brainwashed.
Kids pick up attitudes from conversations and observations of their peers and parents. My daughter knows the difference between a boy and girl - basically they spot there are "differences" when having their nappy changed in nursery - but otherwise don't see its relevance. Similarly, they have zero awareness of race - other than as they might hair colour - and all that stuff comes much later.
There's so much tendentious bullshit around subliminal influences making the difference when they're 18 months old, or so, but it's just that - bullshit.
Yeah I know. Kids are kids, there are weird and sad people who want to push their own agenda onto them. Again, these are the kinds of things that keep me in the blue team despite loathing Boris and him being responsible for the second wave of the virus and everything that has led to over the last six months.
How long before those who proclaimed Dom a model of integrity over Barnard Castle suddenly decide that he's a lying and conniving little shit now that he's being beastly to Boris?
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
I don't know about that. If we have a wobble it could set us back months. It might be a massive overreaction, but I'd rather we carry on like this so that come 21 June, that's it. Done.
Downing St’s decision on Friday to pick a fight with Cummings — identifying him as an alleged leaker — has created an asymmetric fight between an ex-adviser with plenty of secrets to tell & little to lose and the holder of the highest office in the land.
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
UK has given a first dose to 64% of adults, should reach 70% maybe around May 7. EU is still unclear on its calendar. Latest statement seems to indicate enough doses will be available end of July but target likely reached in September, ~ 4 months after UK
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I thought so. Your comment was really about you signalling your superiority.
And yours, perhaps, about presenting yourself as the Wokefinder General ?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Of course I'm happy for kids to be kids! It was just something that occurred to me (inspired by your post about your daughter) and I decided to float. Reasoning being as follows. If people are more concerned that their daughters are not stereotyped into 'female' things than they are that their sons are not stereotyped into 'male' things - which I suspect is the case and could be supported by what I postulated about toys being true - this could be because they recognize, whether they say so or not, that 'male' things are more valued by the society we live in than 'female' things. Which is a none too shabby shorthand for the Patriarchy. Don't get freaked by the wonkiness of the word, just have a think about it. No need to instinctively bridle and try to "ladybird logic" it away.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I thought so. Your comment was really about you signalling your superiority.
And yours, perhaps, about presenting yourself as the Wokefinder General ?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
We're up to the 24th though, if there was an effect from schools reopening we'd be seeing it now and we'd definitely be seeing an unlockdown rise in cases if there was going to be one. I think we may have reached herd immunity already due to prior infection plus first vaccinations now covering close to 70% of the whole population.
Downing St’s decision on Friday to pick a fight with Cummings — identifying him as an alleged leaker — has created an asymmetric fight between an ex-adviser with plenty of secrets to tell & little to lose and the holder of the highest office in the land.
Cummings is an epic bullshitter. In betting speak, he’s an aftertimer. A complete narcissist.
Journos would be wise to be sceptical of his claims.
Personally, I don’t believe a word of what he says.
He has provided a reasonable level of detail, and offered inspection of his phone and to face media questions, which gives his account a degree of credibility. And it is noticeable that Downing Street has nothing with which to discredit his account.
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
Haven't JP Morgan stepped away from it as well? Pretty sure they indicated they'll be happy to dissolve the whole thing now.
I have discovered today that my Polling Day of 6th May for both County Council and City Council has now to be deferred following the sad death of the Conservative candidate. She was also a former Lord Mayor of Norwich.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Of course I'm happy for kids to be kids! It doesn't mean you switch your faculties off. It was just a genuine thought that occurred to me (inspired by your post about your daughter) and I decided to float. Push it through the cat-flap and see if it liked it out there. Reasoning (for the thought) being as follows. If people are more concerned that their daughters are not stereotyped into 'female' things than they are that their sons are not stereotyped into 'male' things - which I think is the case and could be supported by what I postulated about toys being true - then this could be because they recognize, whether they say so or not, that 'male' things are more valued by the society we live in than 'female' things. Which is a none too shabby shorthand for the Patriarchy. Don't get freaked by the wonkiness of the word, just have a proper think about it. No need to instinctively bridle and try and "ladybird logic" your way out of it.
I don't consciously remember buying either of my boys any "girls toys", it was more that Fox Jr 1 found Mrs Foxy's doll and pram in a box of old toys and took to it. He had a fair number of toy diggers and similar too.
Fox Jr2 played mostly with his older brothers toys and did a lot of arts and crafts too. It was like living in Blue Peter a lot of the time. He did wear a purple tutu at a music festival aged about 8, but that is more just festival wear than anything else.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I thought so. Your comment was really about you signalling your superiority.
And yours, perhaps, about presenting yourself as the Wokefinder General ?
I rather like that! 😅
Except when he charges you (and your town) 5 figures for a couple of days work finding the "woke".....
UK has given a first dose to 64% of adults, should reach 70% maybe around May 7. EU is still unclear on its calendar. Latest statement seems to indicate enough doses will be available end of July but target likely reached in September, ~ 4 months after UK
I'd say late September for EU to reach 70% of adults 2 doses each, based on
28 doses per 100 people so far injected. Approx doses required are 80% adults * 70% herd immunity * 2 doses per adult = 112 doses per 100 required. ie 80-85 doses per 100 still required for 70% of adults 2 doses.
Current run rate EU average since it all stepped up is 0.55 doses per 100 people per day.
82/0.55 is 150 days.
Which is 5 months, or end of September including a week for immunity for the last 2nd doses.
Assuming:
- Smooth supplies. - Smooth distribution. - Ignoring balances between countries. Northern and Scandi will be quicker. - And all the rest.
The UK date for 2 doses each at 70% is late approx late June.
ie 3 months behind just the same as UVDL was on sorting contracts etc, and all the constant bullshit firehose from EuCo is ... bullshit.
Obvs deaths will be controlled by 2 things:
1 - How many are alreafy built in. 2 - How well unlocking is handled. Signs bad on that.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I thought so. Your comment was really about you signalling your superiority.
And yours, perhaps, about presenting yourself as the Wokefinder General ?
Nah. I didn't bring up anything about gendered or racialised toys, nor try to virtue-signal about it.
UK has given a first dose to 64% of adults, should reach 70% maybe around May 7. EU is still unclear on its calendar. Latest statement seems to indicate enough doses will be available end of July but target likely reached in September, ~ 4 months after UK
I'd say late September for EU to reach 70% of adults 2 doses each, based on
28 doses per 100 people so far injected. Approx doses required are 80% adults * 70% herd immunity * 2 doses per adult = 112 doses per 100 required. ie 80-85 doses per 100 still required for 70% of adults 2 doses.
Current run rate EU average since it all stepped up is 0.55 doses per 100 people per day.
82/0.55 is 150 days.
Which is 5 months, or end of September including a week for immunity for the last 2nd doses.
Assuming:
- Smooth supplies. - Smooth distribution. - Ignoring balances between countries. Northern and Scandi will be quicker. - And all the rest.
The UK date for 2 doses each at 70% is late approx late June.
ie 3 months behind just the same as UVDL was on sorting contracts etc, and all the constant bullshit firehose from EuCo is ... bullshit.
Obvs deaths will be controlled by 2 things:
1 - How many are alreafy built in. 2 - How well unlocking is handled. Signs bad on that.
Other big assumption, especially in France, is you can find 70% who want to be jabbed!
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
No. It's because girls' toys are shit.
Think that supports my point rather than contradicts it!
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Of course I'm happy for kids to be kids! It was just something that occurred to me (inspired by your post about your daughter) and I decided to float. Reasoning being as follows. If people are more concerned that their daughters are not stereotyped into 'female' things than they are that their sons are not stereotyped into 'male' things - which I suspect is the case and could be supported by what I postulated about toys being true - this could be because they recognize, whether they say so or not, that 'male' things are more valued by the society we live in than 'female' things. Which is a none too shabby shorthand for the Patriarchy. Don't get freaked by the wonkiness of the word, just have a think about it. No need to instinctively bridle and try to "ladybird logic" it away.
God, the logical contortions. Building bricks, trains, cars, tractors, balls, crayons and stickers aren't "male" things - they're just toys. Kids are learning dexterity and about the world around them, and how to express themselves. It's as simple as that. You don't have to try and retrofit everything to a rigid political theory.
Anyway, I have to sign off for the evening. Have fun.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Nah, as soon as a boy picks up a Barbie it's time to ship them off to the Tavistock centre so they can be brainwashed.
I know this is you two "young fogey" reactionaries chatting shit to each other and having a laugh. It's banter and it's fine.
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
The interesting thing is the hospital admissions
Which are steadily falling, but haven't collapsed, leading to R derived from hospital admissions to look like this
Looking at the groups being admitted -
The vaccinated groups are still a big proportion of those entering hospital - though much less than before.
Though the vaccinated groups are now the least likely to have a detected case of COVID - by a considerable margin
Look at hospital numbers on and English regional basis.
London has a steadily increasing proportion - the effect of anti-vaxxers perhaps.
Admissions with something other than covid who then test + for covid?
If the admissions line is flat despite falling cases then are we looking at false positives here?
No.
"False positives" is really the biggest red herring of the whole pandemic, the Gov't following up +ve LFTs with PCRs for schools has killed it once and for all.
Additionally the antibodies can't be at the rate they are at without a massive number of false negatives /non tests of Covid.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Nah, as soon as a boy picks up a Barbie it's time to ship them off to the Tavistock centre so they can be brainwashed.
I know this is you two "young fogey" reactionaries chatting shit to each other and having a laugh. It's banter and it's fine.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Of course I'm happy for kids to be kids! It doesn't mean you switch your faculties off. It was just a genuine thought that occurred to me (inspired by your post about your daughter) and I decided to float. Push it through the cat-flap and see if it liked it out there. Reasoning (for the thought) being as follows. If people are more concerned that their daughters are not stereotyped into 'female' things than they are that their sons are not stereotyped into 'male' things - which I think is the case and could be supported by what I postulated about toys being true - then this could be because they recognize, whether they say so or not, that 'male' things are more valued by the society we live in than 'female' things. Which is a none too shabby shorthand for the Patriarchy. Don't get freaked by the wonkiness of the word, just have a proper think about it. No need to instinctively bridle and try and "ladybird logic" your way out of it.
I don't consciously remember buying either of my boys any "girls toys", it was more that Fox Jr 1 found Mrs Foxy's doll and pram in a box of old toys and took to it. He had a fair number of toy diggers and similar too.
Fox Jr2 played mostly with his older brothers toys and did a lot of arts and crafts too. It was like living in Blue Peter a lot of the time. He did wear a purple tutu at a music festival aged about 8, but that is more just festival wear than anything else.
Unfortunately my 1st marriage crashed and burnt - cos me - and although I stayed in close touch with my son I did not really "bring him up" in any meaningful way. My ex wife did it and takes all of the credit for the bloke that he's become, which is a good one.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I thought so. Your comment was really about you signalling your superiority.
And yours, perhaps, about presenting yourself as the Wokefinder General ?
Nah. I didn't bring up anything about gendered or racialised toys, nor try to virtue-signal about it.
Grow up.
You seem to have a problem when people get judgey with you for being judgey...
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
My son had a plushy frankenstein and a plushy bertie basset as his favourite toys when young does that count?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
You're just projecting your own beliefs onto the act.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
No. It's because girls' toys are shit.
That's obviously a boy's opinion.
Make him build a dolls' house.
Yes, I didn't quite get the comment tbh. But as is my wont I thought up a suitable reply.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
You're just projecting your own beliefs onto the act.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
But the unBritish part of it is that everyone in this country already believes that, we don't need to say it because it is an intrinsic part of our society. We don't have the same racial issues as the US. Starmer took the knee either because he believes the UK is a racist country, or because he is an unserious politician that can't say no to twitter pressure. Neither reflects well on him.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Nah, as soon as a boy picks up a Barbie it's time to ship them off to the Tavistock centre so they can be brainwashed.
I know this is you two "young fogey" reactionaries chatting shit to each other and having a laugh. It's banter and it's fine.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I think that would be quite rare.
Used to be quite common, surely. Think marmalade.
Ah indeed so.
No, it is because for a long time there were only White dolls so it was common to see Black girls with White dolls.
Though come to think of it, I'm not sure I've seen girls with dolls for some time. Maybe they've gone out of fashion and now young girls are given their mums' old mobile phones. And the school starting age seems to be about three.
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
Sounds like he'd fit in if there is a job going at the European Commission.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
You're just projecting your own beliefs onto the act.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
But the unBritish part of it is that everyone in this country already believes that. We don't have the same racial issues as the US. Starmer took the knee either because he believes the UK is a racist country, or because he is an unserious politician that can't say no to twitter pressure. Neither reflects well on him.
And you keep projecting.
Starmer took the knee because he supported the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, all sharing one message — that black lives matter.
It has nothing to do with whether the UK is a "racist country".
Why on earth are you conflating the two?
The fact you think that Starmer is an unserious politician because he chose to support black lives matter is laughable.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
I struggle to understand how anyone can get angry about ppl taking - or not taking - the knee.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
I struggle to understand how anyone can get angry about ppl taking - or not taking - the knee.
I tell you what is unBritish — limiting freedom of protest and yet Johnson loves that. When are you going to criticise him for not defending tradition @MaxPB?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
You're just projecting your own beliefs onto the act.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
But the unBritish part of it is that everyone in this country already believes that. We don't have the same racial issues as the US. Starmer took the knee either because he believes the UK is a racist country, or because he is an unserious politician that can't say no to twitter pressure. Neither reflects well on him.
And you keep projecting.
Starmer took the knee because he supported the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, all sharing one message — that black lives matter.
It has nothing to do with whether the UK is a "racist country".
Why on earth are you conflating the two?
The fact you think that Starmer is an unserious politician because he chose to support black lives matter is laughable.
If he doesn't think the UK is a racist country then what was he taking the knee for? He's a politician in the UK, not the US. He represents black people in the UK, not the US. Black people here face different challenges to black people in the US.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
You're just projecting your own beliefs onto the act.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
But the unBritish part of it is that everyone in this country already believes that. We don't have the same racial issues as the US. Starmer took the knee either because he believes the UK is a racist country, or because he is an unserious politician that can't say no to twitter pressure. Neither reflects well on him.
And you keep projecting.
Starmer took the knee because he supported the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, all sharing one message — that black lives matter.
It has nothing to do with whether the UK is a "racist country".
Why on earth are you conflating the two?
The fact you think that Starmer is an unserious politician because he chose to support black lives matter is laughable.
If he doesn't think the UK is a racist country then what was he taking the knee for? He's a politician in the UK, not the US. He represents black people in the UK, not the US. Black people here face different challenges to black people in the US.
I'm not sure why you need this explaining. He was supporting the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, sharing a common message — that black lives matter. Plenty of British people did.
I tell you what is unBritish — limiting freedom of protest and yet Johnson loves that. When are you going to criticise him for not defending tradition @MaxPB?
I already have, a lot. As I said I loathe the PM, but he's not going to ship kids off to the Tavistock for playing with Barbies or Monster trucks.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
You're just projecting your own beliefs onto the act.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
But the unBritish part of it is that everyone in this country already believes that. We don't have the same racial issues as the US. Starmer took the knee either because he believes the UK is a racist country, or because he is an unserious politician that can't say no to twitter pressure. Neither reflects well on him.
And you keep projecting.
Starmer took the knee because he supported the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, all sharing one message — that black lives matter.
It has nothing to do with whether the UK is a "racist country".
Why on earth are you conflating the two?
The fact you think that Starmer is an unserious politician because he chose to support black lives matter is laughable.
If he doesn't think the UK is a racist country then what was he taking the knee for? He's a politician in the UK, not the US. He represents black people in the UK, not the US. Black people here face different challenges to black people in the US.
I'm not sure why you need this explaining. He was supporting the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, sharing a common message — that black lives matter. Plenty of British people did.
So by not doing so would he have been signalling he didn't believe that then? Do you think politicians in this county who didn't do it believe that black lives don't matter?
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
The interesting thing is the hospital admissions
Which are steadily falling, but haven't collapsed, leading to R derived from hospital admissions to look like this
Looking at the groups being admitted -
The vaccinated groups are still a big proportion of those entering hospital - though much less than before.
Though the vaccinated groups are now the least likely to have a detected case of COVID - by a considerable margin
Look at hospital numbers on and English regional basis.
London has a steadily increasing proportion - the effect of anti-vaxxers perhaps.
Admissions with something other than covid who then test + for covid?
If the admissions line is flat despite falling cases then are we looking at false positives here?
No.
"False positives" is really the biggest red herring of the whole pandemic, the Gov't following up +ve LFTs with PCRs for schools has killed it once and for all.
Additionally the antibodies can't be at the rate they are at without a massive number of false negatives /non tests of Covid.
There's clearly millions of people who were infected last spring who never had a test at that time.
There might be millions more who have been infected but were asymptomatic and so never had a test either.
Given that the number of reinfections remains minimal - Italy and France would be having thousands of reinfections per day if it wasn't - then being infected last spring must still be giving people antibodies.
@MaxPB this is where the culture war bullshit comes in.
If Starmer has said Britain is a racist country, then it's fair to dispute that. I personally don't think Britain is a racist country. Although it isn't perfect, it's a darn-sight better than pretty much everywhere else.
However the whole "taking the knee" thing was just an "anti racism" symbol. I don't understand why some have found it so troubling. It isn't an insult to anyone.
I appreciate you don't think the symbol is particularly effective, and neither do I, and neither do I think many, if any, of the themes from black lives matter are applicable in the UK, but Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
The Real Madrid president, Florentino Pérez, said the 12 clubs announced last week as founders of the European Super League cannot abandon it due to binding contracts and promised the project would return soon.
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Of course I'm happy for kids to be kids! It was just something that occurred to me (inspired by your post about your daughter) and I decided to float. Reasoning being as follows. If people are more concerned that their daughters are not stereotyped into 'female' things than they are that their sons are not stereotyped into 'male' things - which I suspect is the case and could be supported by what I postulated about toys being true - this could be because they recognize, whether they say so or not, that 'male' things are more valued by the society we live in than 'female' things. Which is a none too shabby shorthand for the Patriarchy. Don't get freaked by the wonkiness of the word, just have a think about it. No need to instinctively bridle and try to "ladybird logic" it away.
God, the logical contortions. Building bricks, trains, cars, tractors, balls, crayons and stickers aren't "male" things - they're just toys. Kids are learning dexterity and about the world around them, and how to express themselves. It's as simple as that. You don't have to try and retrofit everything to a rigid political theory.
Anyway, I have to sign off for the evening. Have fun.
Brain not engaged despite my plea. So those 'male' things are just things. Ok. And what about the 'female' things? - eg the dolls and toy pushchairs you mentioned - are they also just things? If so, what is your explanation for the fact that parents are more comfortable giving their daughters 'boy' toys than their sons 'girl' toys?
I'm not sure why you need this explaining. He was supporting the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, sharing a common message — that black lives matter. Plenty of British people did.
So by not doing so would he have been signalling he didn't believe that then? Do you think politicians in this county who didn't do it believe that black lives don't matter?
I didn't say that did I?
Some chose to, some didn't. So what?
It has nothing to do with British tradition.
Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters, in a way they appreciated, that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
I tell you what is unBritish — limiting freedom of protest and yet Johnson loves that. When are you going to criticise him for not defending tradition @MaxPB?
I already have, a lot. As I said I loathe the PM, but he's not going to ship kids off to the Tavistock for playing with Barbies or Monster trucks.
I don't understand your Tavistock reference but I assume it has nothing to do with taking the knee in support of black lives matter.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
I think that would be quite rare.
Used to be quite common, surely. Think marmalade.
Ah indeed so.
No, it is because for a long time there were only White dolls so it was common to see Black girls with White dolls.
Though come to think of it, I'm not sure I've seen girls with dolls for some time. Maybe they've gone out of fashion and now young girls are given their mums' old mobile phones. And the school starting age seems to be about three.
I think Carnyx was alluding to gollies. So the other way around. But that's interesting what you say. I didn't know that.
I'm not sure why you need this explaining. He was supporting the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, sharing a common message — that black lives matter. Plenty of British people did.
So by not doing so would he have been signalling he didn't believe that then? Do you think politicians in this county who didn't do it believe that black lives don't matter?
I didn't say that did I?
Some chose to, some didn't. So what?
It has nothing to do with British tradition.
Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters, in a way they appreciated, that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
I think that's fine. I personally find the footballers doing it game after game a bit weird to be honest. And, for what it's worth, I'm not keen on the poppy shirts (though, they are only once a year).
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
@MaxPB this is where the culture war bullshit comes in.
If Starmer has said Britain is a racist country, then it's fair to dispute that. I personally don't think Britain is a racist country. Although it isn't perfect, it's a darn-sight better than pretty much everywhere else.
However the whole "taking the knee" thing was just an "anti racism" symbol. I don't understand why some have found it so troubling. It isn't an insult to anyone.
I appreciate you don't think the symbol is particularly effective, and neither do I, and neither do I think many, if any, of the themes from black lives matter are applicable in the UK, but Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
But this is what my issue with Starmer is, he can't say no to the Twitter mob. Like you, I don't think he believes the UK is a racist country. When the Twitter mob turns on him because he doesn't fully support self ID for transgender issues, will he resist them? When they turn on him because he doesn't support use of puberty blockers will he be able to stand firm? I doubt it. He's an unserious politician, he has shown that by taking the knee because he can't resist the Twitter mob.
I'm not sure why you need this explaining. He was supporting the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, sharing a common message — that black lives matter. Plenty of British people did.
So by not doing so would he have been signalling he didn't believe that then? Do you think politicians in this county who didn't do it believe that black lives don't matter?
I didn't say that did I?
Some chose to, some didn't. So what?
It has nothing to do with British tradition.
Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters, in a way they appreciated, that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
I think that's fine. I personally find the footballers doing it game after game a bit weird to be honest. And, for what it's worth, I'm not keen on the poppy shirts (though, they are only once a year).
Yeah I don't understand why they are still doing it as the point has been made, but hey, if they want to!
Poppy shirts — I'm not particularly bothered. That's a tradition in itself at this point now.
@MaxPB this is where the culture war bullshit comes in.
If Starmer has said Britain is a racist country, then it's fair to dispute that. I personally don't think Britain is a racist country. Although it isn't perfect, it's a darn-sight better than pretty much everywhere else.
However the whole "taking the knee" thing was just an "anti racism" symbol. I don't understand why some have found it so troubling. It isn't an insult to anyone.
I appreciate you don't think the symbol is particularly effective, and neither do I, and neither do I think many, if any, of the themes from black lives matter are applicable in the UK, but Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
But this is what my issue with Starmer is, he can't say no to the Twitter mob. Like you, I don't think he believes the UK is a racist country. When the Twitter mob turns on him because he doesn't fully support self ID for transgender issues, will he resist them? When they turn on him because he doesn't support use of puberty blockers will he be able to stand firm? I doubt it. He's an unserious politician, he has shown that by taking the knee because he can't resist the Twitter mob.
But why have you made the leap that the only reason Starmer "took the knee" was because of the Twitter mob?
I'm fairly certain that black lives matter has greater popular support than extreme transgender policies. In fact only 20% actively oppose it.
I guess we have plenty of time to see if he's willing to piss off the Twitter mob, although he seems to be doing just that with his flag stuff.
@MaxPB I'm interested in hearing your views on the Poppy stuff.
When I was growing up, armistice day and the build up was always a solemn occasion with people wearing poppy's out of respect for the dead. I liked it and felt it was very appropriate. It now feels very "americanised" and more about military triumphalism and showing how "respectful" you can be compared to your neighbours — who can wear the biggest poppy. To me that is very much against tradition.
How long before those who proclaimed Dom a model of integrity over Barnard Castle suddenly decide that he's a lying and conniving little shit now that he's being beastly to Boris?
@MaxPB this is where the culture war bullshit comes in.
If Starmer has said Britain is a racist country, then it's fair to dispute that. I personally don't think Britain is a racist country. Although it isn't perfect, it's a darn-sight better than pretty much everywhere else.
However the whole "taking the knee" thing was just an "anti racism" symbol. I don't understand why some have found it so troubling. It isn't an insult to anyone.
I appreciate you don't think the symbol is particularly effective, and neither do I, and neither do I think many, if any, of the themes from black lives matter are applicable in the UK, but Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
But this is what my issue with Starmer is, he can't say no to the Twitter mob. Like you, I don't think he believes the UK is a racist country. When the Twitter mob turns on him because he doesn't fully support self ID for transgender issues, will he resist them? When they turn on him because he doesn't support use of puberty blockers will he be able to stand firm? I doubt it. He's an unserious politician, he has shown that by taking the knee because he can't resist the Twitter mob.
But why have you made the leap that the only reason Starmer "took the knee" was because of the Twitter mob?
I'm fairly certain that black lives matter has greater popular support than extreme transgender policies. In fact only 20% actively oppose it.
I guess we have plenty of time to see if he's willing to piss off the Twitter mob, although he seems to be doing just that with his flag stuff.
Because it was, other mindless Labour MPs did it and then he was taking shit for not being in that group so he hastily did it.
As I said, I'll believe Labour aren't going to be ruled by the Twitter mob when it happens.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
@MaxPB I'm interested in hearing your views on the Poppy stuff.
When I was growing up, armistice day and the build up was always a solemn occasion with people wearing poppy's out of respect for the dead. I liked it and felt it was very appropriate. It now feels very "americanised" and more about military triumphalism and showing how "respectful" you can be compared to your neighbours — who can wear the biggest poppy. To me that is very much against tradition.
Except that isn't the left...
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
@MaxPB this is where the culture war bullshit comes in.
If Starmer has said Britain is a racist country, then it's fair to dispute that. I personally don't think Britain is a racist country. Although it isn't perfect, it's a darn-sight better than pretty much everywhere else.
However the whole "taking the knee" thing was just an "anti racism" symbol. I don't understand why some have found it so troubling. It isn't an insult to anyone.
I appreciate you don't think the symbol is particularly effective, and neither do I, and neither do I think many, if any, of the themes from black lives matter are applicable in the UK, but Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
But this is what my issue with Starmer is, he can't say no to the Twitter mob. Like you, I don't think he believes the UK is a racist country. When the Twitter mob turns on him because he doesn't fully support self ID for transgender issues, will he resist them? When they turn on him because he doesn't support use of puberty blockers will he be able to stand firm? I doubt it. He's an unserious politician, he has shown that by taking the knee because he can't resist the Twitter mob.
I think you're making too much of one gesture. He doesn't strike me as particularly given to responding to pressure from any quarter.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
UK has given a first dose to 64% of adults, should reach 70% maybe around May 7. EU is still unclear on its calendar. Latest statement seems to indicate enough doses will be available end of July but target likely reached in September, ~ 4 months after UK
I'd say late September for EU to reach 70% of adults 2 doses each, based on
28 doses per 100 people so far injected. Approx doses required are 80% adults * 70% herd immunity * 2 doses per adult = 112 doses per 100 required. ie 80-85 doses per 100 still required for 70% of adults 2 doses.
Current run rate EU average since it all stepped up is 0.55 doses per 100 people per day.
82/0.55 is 150 days.
Which is 5 months, or end of September including a week for immunity for the last 2nd doses.
Assuming:
- Smooth supplies. - Smooth distribution. - Ignoring balances between countries. Northern and Scandi will be quicker. - And all the rest.
The UK date for 2 doses each at 70% is late approx late June.
ie 3 months behind just the same as UVDL was on sorting contracts etc, and all the constant bullshit firehose from EuCo is ... bullshit.
Obvs deaths will be controlled by 2 things:
1 - How many are alreafy built in. 2 - How well unlocking is handled. Signs bad on that.
That assumes that the current rate is as fast as they can go. Which seems unlikely, since the limiting factor everywhere is supply, and that is still accelerating.
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
We're up to the 24th though, if there was an effect from schools reopening we'd be seeing it now and we'd definitely be seeing an unlockdown rise in cases if there was going to be one. I think we may have reached herd immunity already due to prior infection plus first vaccinations now covering close to 70% of the whole population.
We do seem to be at herd immunity for current levels of mixing. R is only a little below 1, so perhaps not quite there yet for unrestricted mixing, but not too far off.
Although I tend to be cautious, I actually do think that the government could bring the 17th May ahead by a week, if data is still good in a week's time. Their 5-week interval was, for reasons that I found quite convincing, based on the time needed to detect a rise in hospitalization. But a rise in hospitalization is extremely unlikely unless there is first a rise in cases, and we aren't seeing that. Hence I think they could safely advance a week (and by another week for the 21st June date if cases still drop).
I imagine that they were expecting to see cases flatline or slightly rise, but hospitalizations keep dropping, in which case they would need the full amount of time to get evidence for that. It's good news that they have been surprised on the upside.
How long before those who proclaimed Dom a model of integrity over Barnard Castle suddenly decide that he's a lying and conniving little shit now that he's being beastly to Boris?
I don't think anyone ever really thought that.
You clearly weren't around here at the time. There were some posters who were practically nominating him for the Parent of the Year award.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
An example when following common sense was better than 'following the science'.
And while the government might have an excuse for last spring they don't for afterwards right up to the delay on restrictions to India.
I'm one of the rare people who was against VAR even before it was introduced, but if we are going to have it, the panel should be 3 people not 1, 2 referees and an ex player. It shouldnt go back to the on field ref who sees it fewer times than the VAR ref.
In this scenario the ex player would simply have asked what was he supposed to do, and the VAR refs would have gone, oh yeah, no red.
On the boys toys versus girls toys debate, I don't think to a great extent there are many things that are "boys toys". I've got two little girls and they have plenty of what I suppose you could easily call "girls toys" (Disney princess and Barbie stuff etc) - and then they've got plenty of what I would simply call "toys".
My eldest is really into Disney Princess stuff, always has been since she could start to talk and express an interest. She loved Sofia the First then moved onto Rapunzel and is a very 'girly girl'. She loves anything pink and we had Rapunzel come to visit her first school birthday party.
My youngest loves Toy Story. She's got pretty much the whole Toy Story gang, is always walking around with either Woody, Buzz or Jessie. She's currently learning to ride her bike which is a Buzz Lightyear bike and a Buzz Lightyear helmet. Is that a 'boy toy' or a 'boy bike'? I don't see it that way and neither does she.
Kids are kids, they change their interest over time. Just let kids be kids.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Our daughter has both Hispanic and African American dolls as well as white dolls
Because it was, other mindless Labour MPs did it and then he was taking shit for not being in that group so he hastily did it.
As I said, I'll believe Labour aren't going to be ruled by the Twitter mob when it happens.
Seriously?
Johnson hasn't met a majority he doesn't want to run over and embrace - look at this European Super League farrago.
What business is it of the Government to tell football clubs what they can and cannot do? Had this happened under a truly Conservative Government instead of a cohort of populists, the response would have been along the lines of it being nothing to do with the Government how football clubs operated and with whom they did business.
Which, manifestly, it isn't but as soon as the opposition started growing, in went Johnson and Dowden with both feet backing "the fans".
OTOH, Starmer "takes the knee" and it's the worst thing that ever happened and apparently renders him unsuitable to govern the country.
You might argue Starmer is an unprincipled populist who goes wherever Twitter tells him but the same is manifestly true of the current Prime Minister.
Comments
My great aunt knitted my sister a lovely doll that was of a different ethnicity...
There's so much tendentious bullshit around subliminal influences making the difference when they're 18 months old, or so, but it's just that - bullshit.
Maybe she's a bit racial or colonial, I dunno.
UK has given a first dose to 64% of adults, should reach 70% maybe around May 7. EU is still unclear on its calendar. Latest statement seems to indicate enough doses will be available end of July but target likely reached in September, ~ 4 months after UK
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1386000049444954116?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/apr/24/perez-says-super-league-clubs-cannot-leave-as-manchester-united-fans-protest
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/anti-us-sentiment-explodes-as-joe-biden-kamala-harris-remain-cold-to-new-delhis-needs/articleshow/82233724.cms
Which are steadily falling, but haven't collapsed, leading to R derived from hospital admissions to look like this
Looking at the groups being admitted -
The vaccinated groups are still a big proportion of those entering hospital - though much less than before.
Though the vaccinated groups are now the least likely to have a detected case of COVID - by a considerable margin
But then the same is true of all overseas travel.
London has a steadily increasing proportion - the effect of anti-vaxxers perhaps.
He has provided a reasonable level of detail, and offered inspection of his phone and to face media questions, which gives his account a degree of credibility. And it is noticeable that Downing Street has nothing with which to discredit his account.
Fox Jr2 played mostly with his older brothers toys and did a lot of arts and crafts too. It was like living in Blue Peter a lot of the time. He did wear a purple tutu at a music festival aged about 8, but that is more just festival wear than anything else.
28 doses per 100 people so far injected.
Approx doses required are 80% adults * 70% herd immunity * 2 doses per adult = 112 doses per 100 required.
ie 80-85 doses per 100 still required for 70% of adults 2 doses.
Current run rate EU average since it all stepped up is 0.55 doses per 100 people per day.
82/0.55 is 150 days.
Which is 5 months, or end of September including a week for immunity for the last 2nd doses.
Assuming:
- Smooth supplies.
- Smooth distribution.
- Ignoring balances between countries. Northern and Scandi will be quicker.
- And all the rest.
The UK date for 2 doses each at 70% is late approx late June.
ie 3 months behind just the same as UVDL was on sorting contracts etc, and all the constant bullshit firehose from EuCo is ... bullshit.
Obvs deaths will be controlled by 2 things:
1 - How many are alreafy built in.
2 - How well unlocking is handled. Signs bad on that.
Grow up.
If the admissions line is flat despite falling cases then are we looking at false positives here?
Anyway, I have to sign off for the evening. Have fun.
"False positives" is really the biggest red herring of the whole pandemic, the Gov't following up +ve LFTs with PCRs for schools has killed it once and for all.
Additionally the antibodies can't be at the rate they are at without a massive number of false negatives /non tests of Covid.
https://twitter.com/distinguishthat/status/1385945722558853121?s=20
Shareholder of the Pie & Nonce Pub in Kidderminster is good.
Make him build a dolls' house.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
Though come to think of it, I'm not sure I've seen girls with dolls for some time. Maybe they've gone out of fashion and now young girls are given their mums' old mobile phones. And the school starting age seems to be about three.
Starmer took the knee because he supported the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, all sharing one message — that black lives matter.
It has nothing to do with whether the UK is a "racist country".
Why on earth are you conflating the two?
The fact you think that Starmer is an unserious politician because he chose to support black lives matter is laughable.
It’s culture war bullshit. Don’t take the bait.
There might be millions more who have been infected but were asymptomatic and so never had a test either.
Given that the number of reinfections remains minimal - Italy and France would be having thousands of reinfections per day if it wasn't - then being infected last spring must still be giving people antibodies.
If Starmer has said Britain is a racist country, then it's fair to dispute that. I personally don't think Britain is a racist country. Although it isn't perfect, it's a darn-sight better than pretty much everywhere else.
However the whole "taking the knee" thing was just an "anti racism" symbol. I don't understand why some have found it so troubling. It isn't an insult to anyone.
I appreciate you don't think the symbol is particularly effective, and neither do I, and neither do I think many, if any, of the themes from black lives matter are applicable in the UK, but Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
Some chose to, some didn't. So what?
It has nothing to do with British tradition.
Starmer merely demonstrated to his supporters, in a way they appreciated, that he supports the worldwide fight against racism.
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed
Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread
Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed
In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9506983/Cummings-fires-broadside-Boris.html
Poppy shirts — I'm not particularly bothered. That's a tradition in itself at this point now.
I'm fairly certain that black lives matter has greater popular support than extreme transgender policies. In fact only 20% actively oppose it.
I guess we have plenty of time to see if he's willing to piss off the Twitter mob, although he seems to be doing just that with his flag stuff.
When I was growing up, armistice day and the build up was always a solemn occasion with people wearing poppy's out of respect for the dead. I liked it and felt it was very appropriate. It now feels very "americanised" and more about military triumphalism and showing how "respectful" you can be compared to your neighbours — who can wear the biggest poppy. To me that is very much against tradition.
Except that isn't the left...
As I said, I'll believe Labour aren't going to be ruled by the Twitter mob when it happens.
https://site-cdn.givemesport.com/images/20/01/12/6ee68c97947da8b63275091c719f063d/960.jpg
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
Although I tend to be cautious, I actually do think that the government could bring the 17th May ahead by a week, if data is still good in a week's time. Their 5-week interval was, for reasons that I found quite convincing, based on the time needed to detect a rise in hospitalization. But a rise in hospitalization is extremely unlikely unless there is first a rise in cases, and we aren't seeing that. Hence I think they could safely advance a week (and by another week for the 21st June date if cases still drop).
I imagine that they were expecting to see cases flatline or slightly rise, but hospitalizations keep dropping, in which case they would need the full amount of time to get evidence for that. It's good news that they have been surprised on the upside.
--AS
And while the government might have an excuse for last spring they don't for afterwards right up to the delay on restrictions to India.
In this scenario the ex player would simply have asked what was he supposed to do, and the VAR refs would have gone, oh yeah, no red.
My eldest is really into Disney Princess stuff, always has been since she could start to talk and express an interest. She loved Sofia the First then moved onto Rapunzel and is a very 'girly girl'. She loves anything pink and we had Rapunzel come to visit her first school birthday party.
My youngest loves Toy Story. She's got pretty much the whole Toy Story gang, is always walking around with either Woody, Buzz or Jessie. She's currently learning to ride her bike which is a Buzz Lightyear bike and a Buzz Lightyear helmet. Is that a 'boy toy' or a 'boy bike'? I don't see it that way and neither does she.
Kids are kids, they change their interest over time. Just let kids be kids.
Johnson hasn't met a majority he doesn't want to run over and embrace - look at this European Super League farrago.
What business is it of the Government to tell football clubs what they can and cannot do? Had this happened under a truly Conservative Government instead of a cohort of populists, the response would have been along the lines of it being nothing to do with the Government how football clubs operated and with whom they did business.
Which, manifestly, it isn't but as soon as the opposition started growing, in went Johnson and Dowden with both feet backing "the fans".
OTOH, Starmer "takes the knee" and it's the worst thing that ever happened and apparently renders him unsuitable to govern the country.
You might argue Starmer is an unprincipled populist who goes wherever Twitter tells him but the same is manifestly true of the current Prime Minister.