That would be a biggie. She's the darling of The Daily Express.
Careful what you wish for. If Patel gets replaced, it’ll be because she’s failed to stop the boats - and that’s what will be top of the inbox for the new HS.
I'd love it to be Gove.
The rumour is Gove to “Minister for levelling-up the North”.
Nice way to put Gove and Rishi on a collision course - going to be interesting to see the end result of the fight they will end up having.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.
"Everyone is born either a male or a female."
Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.
Gosh, that one is fast becoming an old chestnut. This is incredibly rare. Are you suggesting that transgender people are "intersex" people?
Of course not, although the groups might intersect (*)
Intersex people may be 'Incredibly' rare, or just rare, depending on definition. But they still exist. And deserve a little more understanding than being ignored with "Everyone is born either a male or a female."
(*) Goodness, how I hate using 'intersect' nowadays...
I could believe that 0.02% or 1.7% might be correct, depending on the definition. Intersex is probably a range of things, not all of which might be immediately physically obvious.
I'd love to see other figures.
But it isn't zero.
That's the population of Leicester. A ridiculous figure taken from a unpublished dissertation. So somewhere between zero and the population of :Leicester. I'm betting much closer to zero.
But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality. The "not everyone is either male sex or female sex" gambit is like me saying that a coin toss will result in a heads or a tails outcome and them saying "No, no you are wrong, it could land on its edge".
"But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality."
Wow. You're trying to say intersex people are so vanishingly close to zero that they might as well live in Haiti (*), and then you come out with that?
I don't know the true number of intersex people. Which, you might think, is actually a symptom of the problem. People like to pigeonhole others; say they fit into nice little categories. Well, it seems humans are not that simple to pigeonhole. Whether it is boys wanting to date other boys, boys wanting to be girls, or people born with a confusing gender, people are messy and confusing.
We need to start accepting that.
(*) For anyone reading this morning's thread...
What? We need to *start* accepting boys wanting to date other boys?
The transgender people I know are happy getting on with life and anywhere between neutral and seriously hostile to people purporting to activise on their behalf. It's like the anti apartheid stuff in the 70s and 80s: go down to a South African township, and the quickest way to get severely beaten or killed, other than wear a Rolex, is to start giving it large about how you stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against racial injustice. People are just sooooo ungrateful.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
I'm not trying to activise on their behalf. I'm just giving my view, based on the experiences I've had in life, and the people I've known. I don't go onto the streets to campaign for them, or onto any specialist websites. As I said this morning, many pro-trans activists go to far, as do anti-trans ones.
But I'll state my views on here, and argue strongly with others when I think they're wrong. And that is the nature of PB.
That would be a biggie. She's the darling of The Daily Express.
Careful what you wish for. If Patel gets replaced, it’ll be because she’s failed to stop the boats - and that’s what will be top of the inbox for the new HS.
I'd love it to be Gove.
The rumour is Gove to “Minister for levelling-up the North”.
I think @Casino_Royale is right to be bearish on Jacinda's future prospects, actually.
She won the election, as he implies, during a perfect storm for her: zero covid cases, no vaccines anywhere and a sharp contrast with the Old Country (to which NZ has a massive inferiority complex): No restrictions in Auckland. London shut.
Now, the situation is the exact opposite. Extreme restrictions in Auckland (and the ever-present and immediate hair-trigger threat of them even when unlocked, because of NZ's utterly dire vaccination rates). London free.
What is her next move? At some point she has to open the borders (and thus accept the cases that she has made a huge show of 'eliminating') because NZ will ultimately collapse economically without international visitors.
Also remember that their tourist season is the Northern Hemisphere winter, so they’ve lost another year by staying locked up for the next few months.
A friend of mine has one of the world’s best jobs - he’s a professional gliding instructor, and until last year he’d spent the last 15 summers in the UK and the last 15 ‘winters’ in NZ. Many of his customers in NZ were Europeans on holiday.
Let’s say he doesn’t like the cold too much, but he doesn’t like being unemployed either!
I note Boris has knifed his prominent cabinet leadership supporters. TBF, a couple of them richly deserved it (Buckland a bit less so), but there is an element of boat burning about this. Should the economy turn really sticky, there might be a reshuffle of PM ahead of the next election ?
It's hard to get rid of a PM who doesn't want to go, I'm not persuaded the Tories really are ruthless thesedays.
A big drop in hospital admissions W o W, and English data suggests this will continue.
Admission numbers certainly do look to be heading in the right direction. 836 on 11th September and the last time they were below that was 22nd August.
That would be a biggie. She's the darling of The Daily Express.
Careful what you wish for. If Patel gets replaced, it’ll be because she’s failed to stop the boats - and that’s what will be top of the inbox for the new HS.
I'd love it to be Gove.
The rumour is Gove to “Minister for levelling-up the North”.
Nice way to put Gove and Rishi on a collision course - going to be interesting to see the end result of the fight they will end up having.
That would be a biggie. She's the darling of The Daily Express.
Careful what you wish for. If Patel gets replaced, it’ll be because she’s failed to stop the boats - and that’s what will be top of the inbox for the new HS.
I'd love it to be Gove.
The rumour is Gove to “Minister for levelling-up the North”.
Nice way to put Gove and Rishi on a collision course - going to be interesting to see the end result of the fight they will end up having.
Methinks Gove will have Rishi for breakfast. I might be wrong, but my guess is that Sunak is one of the most overrated politicians of his very poor peer group.
I note Boris has knifed his prominent cabinet leadership supporters. TBF, a couple of them richly deserved it (Buckland a bit less so), but there is an element of boat burning about this. Should the economy turn really sticky, there might be a reshuffle of PM ahead of the next election ?
It's hard to get rid of a PM who doesn't want to go, I'm not persuaded the Tories really are ruthless thesedays.
The MPs these days are largely scarred of the highly powerful swiveleyed end of membership who are thick enough to swoon over Johnson.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.
"Everyone is born either a male or a female."
Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.
Gosh, that one is fast becoming an old chestnut. This is incredibly rare. Are you suggesting that transgender people are "intersex" people?
Of course not, although the groups might intersect (*)
Intersex people may be 'Incredibly' rare, or just rare, depending on definition. But they still exist. And deserve a little more understanding than being ignored with "Everyone is born either a male or a female."
(*) Goodness, how I hate using 'intersect' nowadays...
I could believe that 0.02% or 1.7% might be correct, depending on the definition. Intersex is probably a range of things, not all of which might be immediately physically obvious.
I'd love to see other figures.
But it isn't zero.
That's the population of Leicester. A ridiculous figure taken from a unpublished dissertation. So somewhere between zero and the population of :Leicester. I'm betting much closer to zero.
But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality. The "not everyone is either male sex or female sex" gambit is like me saying that a coin toss will result in a heads or a tails outcome and them saying "No, no you are wrong, it could land on its edge".
"But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality."
Wow. You're trying to say intersex people are so vanishingly close to zero that they might as well live in Haiti (*), and then you come out with that?
I don't know the true number of intersex people. Which, you might think, is actually a symptom of the problem. People like to pigeonhole others; say they fit into nice little categories. Well, it seems humans are not that simple to pigeonhole. Whether it is boys wanting to date other boys, boys wanting to be girls, or people born with a confusing gender, people are messy and confusing.
We need to start accepting that.
(*) For anyone reading this morning's thread...
What? We need to *start* accepting boys wanting to date other boys?
The transgender people I know are happy getting on with life and anywhere between neutral and seriously hostile to people purporting to activise on their behalf. It's like the anti apartheid stuff in the 70s and 80s: go down to a South African township, and the quickest way to get severely beaten or killed, other than wear a Rolex, is to start giving it large about how you stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against racial injustice. People are just sooooo ungrateful.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
I'm not trying to activise on their behalf. I'm just giving my view, based on the experiences I've had in life, and the people I've known. I don't go onto the streets to campaign for them, or onto any specialist websites. As I said this morning, many pro-trans activists go to far, as do anti-trans ones.
But I'll state my views on here, and argue strongly with others when I think they're wrong. And that is the nature of PB.
I am not talking about you, sorry if you thought I was.
It may be just that I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist here out west, but I didn't think being anti-trans was a big thing. I'm not aware of any insulting expressions equivalent to faggot, poofter etc. And you can see why there wouldn't be. It is relatively easy to understand (meaning solely understand, not in a million years empathize with) some elements of being anti gay: it is deprecated in the Bible, just about, if you squint enough, and it's a thing people do as well as just are. Neither of which applies to trans people So my impression of the activists is that they are hysterically seeking out anti transism just as the HUAC sought out un American activities.
This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries: - Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU. - Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...
She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.
The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Ardern is a classic Wokey. Attack the historic and culture of your own country, and meanwhile cosy up to modern nasty authoritarian regimes and bat away any issues with Whataboutery for an extra buck.
No wonder the Chinese love her.
She won a landslide, she's obviously popular in New Zealand.
Boris won a landslide too on about only 5% less of the vote share, I dont think that inures him from criticism at home or abroad. Arden is surely not perfect even if she is very popular in NZ.
No it's just that there's an opinion that the so-called "woke" (or whatever that means, for goodness sake Ardern ran on immigration controls) can't win elections, when Jacinda did.
Much to learn for Starmer from her.
She won a Covid election at a time when NZ had zero cases, we were entering new lockdowns here and there were no vaccinations on the horizon.
It's a different beast.
[PS. And you know very well what "woke" means - and I even just explained it to you. People who claim they don't simply don't want to engage with it in case it means they have to do the very hard work of having to think and revise their worldview.]
Woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
I am proudly woke and I hope any decent PM in the world is too.
Yep, you exemplify my point at the end of my post.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
It's long past time to stop thinking about Foreign Secretary as one of the Great Offices of State. Prime Ministers have usurped the role for decades.
I'm sure they do important work as a cog in the machine, just as all the ambassadors do, but they don't have the meaningful political role that a Health Secretary or Education Secretary has.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries: - Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU. - Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...
She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.
The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.
I think Truss will be a good Foreign Secretary - she's more thoughtful than Raab, and did a good job at international trade.
Williamson - no loss. Pleased to see the Housing Minister Jenrick go, because that needs to be a focus for the government going forward and he seemed to be largely without idea.
Raab has effectively been promoted out of the way.
First proper reshuffle since just after the 2019 election.
The Resurrection Shuffle...or not?
Looks pretty dreary to this non-believer.
Maybe Hunt will supersub in the last ten minutes?
It's not up there with the best reshuffles I'm sure, but there's at least a few big names genuinely sacked and not just moved, so its better than many of the ones we get.
I suppose reshuffle day is something americans don't get to experience, the poor devils, with all that business of confirming appointments being a hassle.
This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries: - Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU. - Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...
She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.
The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.
Well, duh, she has only been in the job 10 minutes. And does "to my knowledge" mean I positively know she hasn't, or she might have, don't know but my knowledge may be incomplete?
No idea who Wright is but won't be signing to her Twitter feed
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
He flies to places which the PM does not wish to visit, to have meetings with counterparties who are too important for Diplomats, but not as important as for the PM.
Basically - Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, etc.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
Back when communication was less instant, even as telegrams became a thing, I imagine the role had more responsibility to it.
As it is, if you were selecting them today I'm not sure they'd be a Great Office ahead of, say, Defence or Health.
This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries: - Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU. - Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...
She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.
The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.
I think Truss will be a good Foreign Secretary - she's more thoughtful than Raab, and did a good job at international trade.
Williamson - no loss. Pleased to see the Housing Minister Jenrick go, because that needs to be a focus for the government going forward and he seemed to be largely without idea.
Raab has effectively been promoted out of the way.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
Robin Cook was quite a character. Not his fault, but he looked like an odd mixture of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel crossed with a man with severe road rage.
This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries: - Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU. - Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...
She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.
The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.
I think Truss will be a good Foreign Secretary - she's more thoughtful than Raab, and did a good job at international trade.
Williamson - no loss. Pleased to see the Housing Minister Jenrick go, because that needs to be a focus for the government going forward and he seemed to be largely without idea.
Raab has effectively been promoted out of the way.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
Don't forget Margaret Beckett who was also Foreign Secretary under Blair.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
It’s a great question. One of the great offices of state? Is that based not on today, but history, such as the days of empire?
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
Robin Cook was quite a character. Not his fault, but he looked like an odd mixture of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel crossed with a man with severe road rage.
Wrong breed. Try Border Terrier. Not its fault, either.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
He flies to places which the PM does not wish to visit, to have meetings with counterparties who are too important for Diplomats, but not as important as for the PM.
Basically - Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, etc.
That sounds about right.
How is that to be honest "Great"? Health/Education Secretary etc really ought to be more important than that.
I think @Casino_Royale is right to be bearish on Jacinda's future prospects, actually.
She won the election, as he implies, during a perfect storm for her: zero covid cases, no vaccines anywhere and a sharp contrast with the Old Country (to which NZ has a massive inferiority complex): No restrictions in Auckland. London shut.
Now, the situation is the exact opposite. Extreme restrictions in Auckland (and the ever-present and immediate hair-trigger threat of them even when unlocked, because of NZ's utterly dire vaccination rates). London free.
What is her next move? At some point she has to open the borders (and thus accept the cases that she has made a huge show of 'eliminating') because NZ will ultimately collapse economically without international visitors.
Also remember that their tourist season is the Northern Hemisphere winter, so they’ve lost another year by staying locked up for the next few months.
A friend of mine has one of the world’s best jobs - he’s a professional gliding instructor, and until last year he’d spent the last 15 summers in the UK and the last 15 ‘winters’ in NZ. Many of his customers in NZ were Europeans on holiday.
Let’s say he doesn’t like the cold too much, but he doesn’t like being unemployed either!
That's a good point about the seasonality. NZ could end up opening up in our spring... by which time it will be their autumn!
Nadine Dorries very kindly offered to look after my then three year old son, when my daughter (then six) demanded I took her to the bathroom "to make a poop".
I would note that this was outside at a very fancy St James's restaraunt.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.
"Everyone is born either a male or a female."
Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.
Gosh, that one is fast becoming an old chestnut. This is incredibly rare. Are you suggesting that transgender people are "intersex" people?
Of course not, although the groups might intersect (*)
Intersex people may be 'Incredibly' rare, or just rare, depending on definition. But they still exist. And deserve a little more understanding than being ignored with "Everyone is born either a male or a female."
(*) Goodness, how I hate using 'intersect' nowadays...
I could believe that 0.02% or 1.7% might be correct, depending on the definition. Intersex is probably a range of things, not all of which might be immediately physically obvious.
I'd love to see other figures.
But it isn't zero.
That's the population of Leicester. A ridiculous figure taken from a unpublished dissertation. So somewhere between zero and the population of :Leicester. I'm betting much closer to zero.
But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality. The "not everyone is either male sex or female sex" gambit is like me saying that a coin toss will result in a heads or a tails outcome and them saying "No, no you are wrong, it could land on its edge".
"But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality."
Wow. You're trying to say intersex people are so vanishingly close to zero that they might as well live in Haiti (*), and then you come out with that?
I don't know the true number of intersex people. Which, you might think, is actually a symptom of the problem. People like to pigeonhole others; say they fit into nice little categories. Well, it seems humans are not that simple to pigeonhole. Whether it is boys wanting to date other boys, boys wanting to be girls, or people born with a confusing gender, people are messy and confusing.
We need to start accepting that.
(*) For anyone reading this morning's thread...
What? We need to *start* accepting boys wanting to date other boys?
The transgender people I know are happy getting on with life and anywhere between neutral and seriously hostile to people purporting to activise on their behalf. It's like the anti apartheid stuff in the 70s and 80s: go down to a South African township, and the quickest way to get severely beaten or killed, other than wear a Rolex, is to start giving it large about how you stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against racial injustice. People are just sooooo ungrateful.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
I'm not trying to activise on their behalf. I'm just giving my view, based on the experiences I've had in life, and the people I've known. I don't go onto the streets to campaign for them, or onto any specialist websites. As I said this morning, many pro-trans activists go to far, as do anti-trans ones.
But I'll state my views on here, and argue strongly with others when I think they're wrong. And that is the nature of PB.
I am not talking about you, sorry if you thought I was.
It may be just that I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist here out west, but I didn't think being anti-trans was a big thing. I'm not aware of any insulting expressions equivalent to faggot, poofter etc. And you can see why there wouldn't be. It is relatively easy to understand (meaning solely understand, not in a million years empathize with) some elements of being anti gay: it is deprecated in the Bible, just about, if you squint enough, and it's a thing people do as well as just are. Neither of which applies to trans people So my impression of the activists is that they are hysterically seeking out anti transism just as the HUAC sought out un American activities.
Fairy nuff.
But a question: in a post above, you say you know transgender people. When I knew a few transgender people (I don't at the moment, as it happens), I frequently heard comments directed against them - even from people in the same office. Nastiness disguised as 'jokes'. It was really bad for a friend of mine at school (who has now had the op).
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
He flies to places which the PM does not wish to visit, to have meetings with counterparties who are too important for Diplomats, but not as important as for the PM.
Basically - Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, etc.
She’ll likely be out in the sandpit this winter, but to be fair she was probably planning that anyway in the Trade role.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
Don't forget Margaret Beckett who was also Foreign Secretary under Blair.
Very much forgettable. Did she achieve anything in office?
The Rt Hon Michael Gove @MichaelGove has been appointed Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government @MHCLG He takes on cross-government responsibility for levelling up. He retains ministerial responsibility for the Union and elections. #Reshuffle
A big drop in hospital admissions W o W, and English data suggests this will continue.
It's all very encouraging. I definitely didn't see these continued falls coming, but it looks like opening up schools hasn't been the big driver of cases I feared.
Ardern is a classic Wokey. Attack the historic and culture of your own country, and meanwhile cosy up to modern nasty authoritarian regimes and bat away any issues with Whataboutery for an extra buck.
No wonder the Chinese love her.
She won a landslide, she's obviously popular in New Zealand.
Boris won a landslide too on about only 5% less of the vote share, I dont think that inures him from criticism at home or abroad. Arden is surely not perfect even if she is very popular in NZ.
No it's just that there's an opinion that the so-called "woke" (or whatever that means, for goodness sake Ardern ran on immigration controls) can't win elections, when Jacinda did.
Much to learn for Starmer from her.
She won a Covid election at a time when NZ had zero cases, we were entering new lockdowns here and there were no vaccinations on the horizon.
It's a different beast.
[PS. And you know very well what "woke" means - and I even just explained it to you. People who claim they don't simply don't want to engage with it in case it means they have to do the very hard work of having to think and revise their worldview.]
Woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
I am proudly woke and I hope any decent PM in the world is too.
So why are so many of those who consider themselves ‘woke’, actually quite racist? Can’t we all just be colour-blind, and not try and bring race into everything?
Because those people are idiots - and I don't associate with such people. I am actually woke, by the definition that is the correct one.
I am alert to injustice in society as I want to create a more equal society for all, that is why I am a Labour man.
Now, to the outdoors!
Your trouble is that being "Woke" and a "Labour man" is part of your identity because you're young and due to your inexperience of life you've adopted an ideology to make sense of who you are and the world around you. You haven't yet figured out what you think, which would include your own critique and engaging with the failings of your own side, so practice partisanship and cognitive dissonance instead.
I recognise it in you because I used to be the same in my 20s. It's a function of inexperience.
You're bright, so you will get there, but you need to go on a journey first.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
Robin Cook was quite a character. Not his fault, but he looked like an odd mixture of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel crossed with a man with severe road rage.
Wrong breed. Try Border Terrier. Not its fault, either.
Border terriers are quite sweet. Take a look at a picture of a Cavalier King Charles and imagine it angry. It's the eyes!
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
Straw did quite a lot of sucking up to Condoleezza Rice as I recall. Does that count?
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
Straw did quite a lot of sucking up to Condoleezza Rice as I recall. Does that count?
Hey, you thinking sucking up is always easy? I myself work hard at it.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.
"Everyone is born either a male or a female."
Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.
Gosh, that one is fast becoming an old chestnut. This is incredibly rare. Are you suggesting that transgender people are "intersex" people?
Of course not, although the groups might intersect (*)
Intersex people may be 'Incredibly' rare, or just rare, depending on definition. But they still exist. And deserve a little more understanding than being ignored with "Everyone is born either a male or a female."
(*) Goodness, how I hate using 'intersect' nowadays...
I could believe that 0.02% or 1.7% might be correct, depending on the definition. Intersex is probably a range of things, not all of which might be immediately physically obvious.
I'd love to see other figures.
But it isn't zero.
That's the population of Leicester. A ridiculous figure taken from a unpublished dissertation. So somewhere between zero and the population of :Leicester. I'm betting much closer to zero.
But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality. The "not everyone is either male sex or female sex" gambit is like me saying that a coin toss will result in a heads or a tails outcome and them saying "No, no you are wrong, it could land on its edge".
"But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality."
Wow. You're trying to say intersex people are so vanishingly close to zero that they might as well live in Haiti (*), and then you come out with that?
I don't know the true number of intersex people. Which, you might think, is actually a symptom of the problem. People like to pigeonhole others; say they fit into nice little categories. Well, it seems humans are not that simple to pigeonhole. Whether it is boys wanting to date other boys, boys wanting to be girls, or people born with a confusing gender, people are messy and confusing.
We need to start accepting that.
(*) For anyone reading this morning's thread...
What? We need to *start* accepting boys wanting to date other boys?
The transgender people I know are happy getting on with life and anywhere between neutral and seriously hostile to people purporting to activise on their behalf. It's like the anti apartheid stuff in the 70s and 80s: go down to a South African township, and the quickest way to get severely beaten or killed, other than wear a Rolex, is to start giving it large about how you stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against racial injustice. People are just sooooo ungrateful.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
I'm not trying to activise on their behalf. I'm just giving my view, based on the experiences I've had in life, and the people I've known. I don't go onto the streets to campaign for them, or onto any specialist websites. As I said this morning, many pro-trans activists go to far, as do anti-trans ones.
But I'll state my views on here, and argue strongly with others when I think they're wrong. And that is the nature of PB.
I am not talking about you, sorry if you thought I was.
It may be just that I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist here out west, but I didn't think being anti-trans was a big thing. I'm not aware of any insulting expressions equivalent to faggot, poofter etc. And you can see why there wouldn't be. It is relatively easy to understand (meaning solely understand, not in a million years empathize with) some elements of being anti gay: it is deprecated in the Bible, just about, if you squint enough, and it's a thing people do as well as just are. Neither of which applies to trans people So my impression of the activists is that they are hysterically seeking out anti transism just as the HUAC sought out un American activities.
Fairy nuff.
But a question: in a post above, you say you know transgender people. When I knew a few transgender people (I don't at the moment, as it happens), I frequently heard comments directed against them - even from people in the same office. Nastiness disguised as 'jokes'. It was really bad for a friend of mine at school (who has now had the op).
Have you heard and experienced similar?
And a corollary question if I may - was this specifically against trans? As opposed to, say, just mistaking them for being LGB?
Nadine Dorries very kindly offered to look after my then three year old son, when my daughter (then six) demanded I took her to the bathroom "to make a poop".
I would note that this was outside at a very fancy St James's restaraunt.
That’s why she’s got the education job? Great with children?
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Liz Truss deserves her promotion in a way. No minister has ever self-promoted more and she seems popular with Conservative Party members.
It is a good idea for a country to have a foreign policy, even if the PM ignores it. Formulating and implementing the foreign policy would fall to the FM. Unfortunately the UK doesn't have a coherent foreign policy at the moment. I wouldn't look to Truss to come up with one, but we will see.
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Liz Truss deserves her promotion in a way. No minister has ever self-promoted more and she seems popular with Conservative Party members.
It is a good idea for a country to have a foreign policy, even if the PM ignores it. Formulating and implementing the foreign policy would fall to the FM. Unfortunately the UK doesn't have a coherent foreign policy at the moment. I wouldn't look to Truss to come up with one, but we will see.
Who was the last Foreign Secretary that you think credibly formulated foreign policy?
Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.
Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.
Robin Cook was quite a character. Not his fault, but he looked like an odd mixture of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel crossed with a man with severe road rage.
Wrong breed. Try Border Terrier. Not its fault, either.
Border terriers are quite sweet. Take a look at a picture of a Cavalier King Charles and imagine it angry. It's the eyes!
Sorry, just can't see it myself (on point 2: point 1 is nem con of course).
Comments
UK: 38,975 -> 30,597 (-21.5%)
England: 29,286 -> 22,078 (-24.6%)
Scotland: 5,810 -> 4,917 (-15.3%)
NI: 1,210 -> 1,304 (+7.8%)
Wales: 2,669 -> 2,298 (-13.9%)
Where do the British, French, Germans, and Italians feel their countries are with respect to the timeline of the pandemic? The worst is...
GB:
Behind us: 45%
Ahead: 24%
FRA:
Behind us: 36%
Ahead: 38%
GER:
Behind us: 33%
Ahead: 49%
ITA:
Behind us: 51%
Ahead: 28%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1438155929506156555?s=20
I'm not trying to activise on their behalf. I'm just giving my view, based on the experiences I've had in life, and the people I've known. I don't go onto the streets to campaign for them, or onto any specialist websites. As I said this morning, many pro-trans activists go to far, as do anti-trans ones.
But I'll state my views on here, and argue strongly with others when I think they're wrong. And that is the nature of PB.
A friend of mine has one of the world’s best jobs - he’s a professional gliding instructor, and until last year he’d spent the last 15 summers in the UK and the last 15 ‘winters’ in NZ. Many of his customers in NZ were Europeans on holiday.
Let’s say he doesn’t like the cold too much, but he doesn’t like being unemployed either!
Trade, education... anything else?
Very nervous, all of a sudden.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1438157168465879042?s=20
It may be just that I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist here out west, but I didn't think being anti-trans was a big thing. I'm not aware of any insulting expressions equivalent to faggot, poofter etc. And you can see why there wouldn't be. It is relatively easy to understand (meaning solely understand, not in a million years empathize with) some elements of being anti gay: it is deprecated in the Bible, just about, if you squint enough, and it's a thing people do as well as just are. Neither of which applies to trans people So my impression of the activists is that they are hysterically seeking out anti transism just as the HUAC sought out un American activities.
This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries:
- Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU.
- Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...
She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.
https://twitter.com/GeorginaEWright/status/1438158004986290188?s=20
But then again:
The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.
https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1438159052840841224?s=20
But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?
Looks pretty dreary to this non-believer.
Maybe Hunt will supersub in the last ten minutes?
I'm sure they do important work as a cog in the machine, just as all the ambassadors do, but they don't have the meaningful political role that a Health Secretary or Education Secretary has.
Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.
I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?
Williamson - no loss. Pleased to see the Housing Minister Jenrick go, because that needs to be a focus for the government going forward and he seemed to be largely without idea.
Raab has effectively been promoted out of the way.
I suppose reshuffle day is something americans don't get to experience, the poor devils, with all that business of confirming appointments being a hassle.
No idea who Wright is but won't be signing to her Twitter feed
Basically - Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, etc.
As it is, if you were selecting them today I'm not sure they'd be a Great Office ahead of, say, Defence or Health.
How is that to be honest "Great"? Health/Education Secretary etc really ought to be more important than that.
I would note that this was outside at a very fancy St James's restaraunt.
But a question: in a post above, you say you know transgender people. When I knew a few transgender people (I don't at the moment, as it happens), I frequently heard comments directed against them - even from people in the same office. Nastiness disguised as 'jokes'. It was really bad for a friend of mine at school (who has now had the op).
Have you heard and experienced similar?
World Expo 2020 kicks off here in October, for the next six months. http://expo2020dubai.com
The Rt Hon Michael Gove @MichaelGove has been appointed Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government @MHCLG
He takes on cross-government responsibility for levelling up. He retains ministerial responsibility for the Union and elections.
#Reshuffle
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1438160644717662214?s=20
But she says Boris can keep his job for the time being.
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1438158581199687689
I recognise it in you because I used to be the same in my 20s. It's a function of inexperience.
You're bright, so you will get there, but you need to go on a journey first.
Enjoy it.
I imagine @ydoethur has steam coming out of his ears like a cartoon character right now.
***Add punchline here***
It is a good idea for a country to have a foreign policy, even if the PM ignores it. Formulating and implementing the foreign policy would fall to the FM. Unfortunately the UK doesn't have a coherent foreign policy at the moment. I wouldn't look to Truss to come up with one, but we will see.
As opposed to the PM doing it?