On topic, I rather like Ms Truss, and think she would make a good PM.
It's a dream situation for Labour and the Lib Dems though. Tories elect Truss? Racist Tories snub Rishi! Tories elect Rishi? Sexist Tories snub Truss! The fun they'll have - I bet they're salivating at the outrage they can concoct.
Australia and Germany have signed a declaration of intent about cooperation on military space technology, so it looks like the Germans are giving le strop a Gallic shrug.
It is sad. The Lancet was a great British - and global - institution. Now it has to be read through a prism, like it is the Guardian or the Daily Express. What do they really mean? What agenda are they pushing? Does this benefit their Chinese backers?
Once a scientific journal reaches that level it needs a thoroughly deep clean. And, of course, a new editor.
c.f. BoZo on the plane earlier.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland briefed the lobby press, on the record, and their first reaction was "how can verify if anything he just said is in fact true?"
Either (or both?) of the top two might go backwards on some predictions, which is funny.
I hadn't heard about the 'Maverick Party', which advocates secession of parts of Canada.
I was going to joke about the article's italisiced amazement on behalf of its american audience at the idea Trudeau could come second in seats and stay PM, except even here people seem to struggle with how PMs are chosen.
Volcanoes: Listening to R4. I wonder if the Romans had volcanologists? They never quite predict anything, and seem astonishgly complacent. A bit like economists.
The Lancet, which published the infamous, lying, Covid-Wuhan letter denouncing "lab leak theories as conspiratorial racism" has, 19 months later, published an article suggesting a 180 degree handbrake turn. Incredible
"On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”.1 The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,2 which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”.
"The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.3 The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2"
So, when will Richard Horton resign, and when does Peter Daszak get dragged before a court?
Its quite incredible given the numerous scandals Horton just carries on untouched, controlling one of the eading medical journals of record.
Yes. Has he got some hold over the owners, or something? He has publicly disgraced himself, and devalued his journal, several times.
It is sad. The Lancet was a great British - and global - institution. Now it has to be read through a prism, like it is the Guardian or the Daily Express. What do they really mean? What agenda are they pushing? Does this benefit their Chinese backers?
Once a scientific journal reaches that level it needs a thoroughly deep clean. And, of course, a new editor.
The fact Horton knowingly published the original Daszak letter, with all its lies about "no conflict of interest" is a resignation matter by itself. No question.
You know NeoCons like Stephen Pollard were saying exactly that about The Lancet during the Iraq War, when it published numbers on civilian deaths?
As somebody who was cheerleading in my own small way for Lis Truss, on FB and here 2 years ago in the tory leadership election that Boris would eventually win, I'm pleased to see she is progressing and is now that is being recognised by a wider audience, but I don't think its enough to entice me back in to the party. perhaps if Boris announces his departure date in advances so i could re-join and vote, but that's not how things have normally worked.
She has long been most popular in the freedom loving wing of the party, and perhaps that's the same people who like me have left of the lockdowns and authoritarian policy's of the government. I suspect there are not enough people like me to make a defiance in any leaderships election.
I don't spend much time chasing up opinion poll results but I believe that current opinion, as measured by reasonable polling companies, is that while Rejoin does not yet have a majority, having left is considered a mistake.
New polling for B4B. 53% think Brexit has created more problems than it has solved. Only 15% think it has solved more problems than it has created.
Excluding don't-knows, that is a staggering 78% to 22% thinking Brexit has been a net negative. ~AA
I'll try again. Think of Brexit as a massive and brave personal decision, like, say, selling your home, buying a derelict new house, with the intention of totally doing it up, because it has great potential
A close relative of mine did this in Cornwall. Found a really grotty rundown six bedroom house being used as temporary shelter for migrant workers. He saw the potential (location, sea views, etc), and bought it; many of us thought he was mad. We continued to think he was mad as the refurb began, the house was so awful his family had to camp in the garden, then slowly expanded as they revamped room after room. SLOWLY
If you'd asked them, six months into the project, as they discovered dry rot in the basement and rats in the attic, whether the move was - so far - net negative or net positive, he and his family would have ruefully admitted: net negative. They were shivering without power, and eating takeaway pizza
Now, five years later, they live in a large, stunning house with a fantastic garden, in a great location, with glorious views of the sea. They probably spent £300k on the house, £300k on the refurb, it must be worth £1.5m now, if not a lot more. They doubled their money, easily, and they adore their house
Brexit is like that. Like buying a shitty house, but seeing the potential. Asking opinions halfway through the move is basically pointless
A nice try, but a ridiculously optimistic metaphor. Equally it could be like the fabled American who bought London Bridge. I expect, as I said in a previous post, it will be somewhere in between. Pointless, but perhaps not as bad as some of us feared.
It is an optimistic (and quite good) metaphor, but @Leon is dead right that it wasn't about seeing results immediately, but much more about the long term.
The rewards (if they exist) will be up the road, and the pain (which certainly exists, although not so bad) is here and now.
Unadulterated bollox. It will be all pain and no gain. More like poking yourself in the eye with a stick.
I fail to see quite what you're criticising - I certainly left open precisely the outcome you suggest.
I've not tried poking myself in the eye with a stick.
I would suggest not trying it for sure. I was not getting at you personally , just making point that we will be unlikely to see any benefits other than increased US butt licking.
On the header, I think Starmer is determined not to get publicly involved in the sensitivities of the 'trans' debate(s). He knows that as soon as he comments, media coverage will focus for days, if not longer, on what he's said, and will open toxic wounds. He wants the focus to be on the 'big' issues, not peripheral (even if important) concerns. So he's avoiding the debate, just as he's avoiding re-opening Brexit wounds. It's probably good politics. I would hope that he reaches out to Rosie Duffield privately. I suspect he's broadly in support of those advocating pro-Trans + safe spaces for women, as is the current situation.
MPs who receive threats deserve very public support, not private words of support.
Mmm. Like whenever I mention the truly shocking level of sustained abuse that (say) Diane Abbot received for years and everyone says well, you know, public eye, and anyway it's cos she's a bit thick and can't do numbers, so what can you expect.
But Rosie Duffield gets a bit of online stick and - ooo - it's front page of the Sunday Times, and all over the Murdoch press, and it's the most TERRIBLE thing ever, and it just shows how HORRIBLE and IRRATIONAL all these weirdo lefty trans people are, how they
In response to @kinabalu - "I'd start with this question: What should the balance be between self-ID and medical certification in the process for changing gender?
Then based on the answer to this proceed to 2 more:
- What medical and other resource is required to make the process humane and efficient? - On what grounds should female only activities and spaces be able to exclude transwomen?"
I think this structure can generate a good debate and a good policy for any political party."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
Cheers thanks. I'd argue for the default the other way. Inclusion unless there's a good reason otherwise. I'm not sure about self-ID but whatever you do, self-ID is at the heart of it since only the person truly knows how they feel. It's in place in several countries without serious problems, I believe. We aren't cutting edge radical on this, not at all.
Great header anyway. I might try and see if I can write one putting the alternative (and less popular on here!) view.
Couple of things I'd like to ask you now if you have the time and inclination:
Do you know any transpeople?
Harking back to Mrs May's proposed GRA reforms, can you remember if you were passionately opposed to them at the time, or is this an issue you've plunged a lot more into in the last year or so?
Re the real practical harm to women if transwomen can self-ID and share their facilities/spaces. If - IF - you could be convinced that it'd be immeasurably less than the harm caused to transwomen if they can't, would this influence your view at all?
I ask this because I detect a strong theological strand to some of the GC feminist argument inc yours, ie that maybe it's not, deep down and fundamentally, about being massively scared about perverts pretending to be women in order to access and harm them, but more a profound objection to womanhood being divorced from biology, a feeling that the whole notion of being a woman is being in some way dissed if those born male can legally become one without going through a heavy mental and physical medical process - Would that, if you're honest, be what actually fires you up about this matter?
@HTAnews@FT@JudithREvans Interesting part of this is that horticulture is one of the few sectors that has ALREADY experienced checks and controls of the kind that UK govt delayed again earlier this month...and it's been v painful. £30m-£50m a year even before full port-side checks come in. 2/2 https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1439970824182763521/photo/1
Do you ever get down that your enormous anti Brexit output has no effect
I don't spend much time chasing up opinion poll results but I believe that current opinion, as measured by reasonable polling companies, is that while Rejoin does not yet have a majority, having left is considered a mistake.
Completely meaningless. Every single Yougov poll on this since August 2017 (bar one in January 2018) - which was long before we actually left - has said we were wrong to leave. Indeed the lead for 'wrong to leave' is now less than it was in some polls in 2020 or as far back as 2018. But that doesn't matter. The longer we are out the more we move away from the EU. There will never now be a majority for rejoin in the foreseeable future.
So the settled will of the people is that we were wrong to leave.
Thanks for confirming.
The settled will was decided in a vote. As I said at the time, once we were out I would say not a single word against another vote on us rejoining. That is how we settle things, by votes not opinion polls. Indeed, personally I would welcome a vote on joining EFTA. But just as Mike was wrong for all those years claiming that people 'didn't give a monkeys' about the issue of EU membership based on the polling at the time, so you and the rest of the 'unreconciled' are wrong if you think the country is going to vote to rejoin now or at any time in the foreseeable future. And the longer we stay out the greater that gulf will become.
Never mind that, the others wouldn't want us back. Too much of a pain in the arse, too divided on the matter. Once thirty or forty years have passed *and* if there's overwhelming public support for re-joining the EU, then (if it still exists by this point) re-accession might become a realistic prospect.
EFTA wouldn't want us either. We're too big. We know what happens in any organisation where one member is too mighty. Its interests tend to predominate, and the others complain, loudly and frequently, of their sufferings. This doesn't make it impossible for the show to stay in the road but, as we all know from other oft-discussed examples, it can make it rather challenging.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
The Rules Committee is right now debating a bill to codify Roe vs. Wade. The House is planning to vote on it this week in response to SCOTUS allowing Texas to ban abortion after 6 weeks.
You cannot legislate to legalise abortion at a Federal level, because the Supreme Court would overturn it on a jurisdictional basis. (Which may, of course, be the goal of the Democrats.)
What you could do is pass a bill that would prevent States from imposing burdens on people going to other States to get abortions, as that is Interstate Commerce, and therefore under the remit of the Federal Government. (This would, of course, effectively nullify the Texas law, as that imposes penalties of firms or individuals that allow Texans to travel to other states for abortions.)
Abortion should be legalised in the US democratically, as it has been in the rest of the developed world. It is not the job of judges to conjure laws out of the constitution.
OK ta.
In Texas a rapist could bounty hunt a raped woman or even a raped girl physician $10k??
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
The Rules Committee is right now debating a bill to codify Roe vs. Wade. The House is planning to vote on it this week in response to SCOTUS allowing Texas to ban abortion after 6 weeks.
You cannot legislate to legalise abortion at a Federal level, because the Supreme Court would overturn it on a jurisdictional basis. (Which may, of course, be the goal of the Democrats.)
What you could do is pass a bill that would prevent States from imposing burdens on people going to other States to get abortions, as that is Interstate Commerce, and therefore under the remit of the Federal Government. (This would, of course, effectively nullify the Texas law, as that imposes penalties of firms or individuals that allow Texans to travel to other states for abortions.)
Abortion should be legalised in the US democratically, as it has been in the rest of the developed world. It is not the job of judges to conjure laws out of the constitution.
Indeed, even if Roe v Wade was repealed by the SC most states would still keep abortion legal, only a minority of mainly southern US states with Republican governors and Republican state legislatures like Texas would effectively actually criminalise it.
However if Roe v Wade is repealed that also means that Obergefell v Hedges which legalised gay marriage across the US could also be open to challenge given the more socially conservative current SC makeup and repealed in a few of the most conservative states even if most US states still keep gay marriage legal
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
The Rules Committee is right now debating a bill to codify Roe vs. Wade. The House is planning to vote on it this week in response to SCOTUS allowing Texas to ban abortion after 6 weeks.
It is not the job of judges to conjure laws out of the constitution.
It isn't, but how do they break the cycle of expecting them to do so? It's far too rewarding for the sides, and so much easier.
Our gas bill on leaving our old house is £1250! When I told the girl at eon, she said if no one from eon read the meter for a year we can complain and maybe not pay. They didn’t, so we could be in luck. Is this right?
My gf swears she sent them the readings but every bill is an estimate, though the electrics a reading in June
Think you will find you are on to plums. Keep the money handy , they are likely to get you and by that time will have added all the debt collector / bailliff charges if they do not have your new address.
I don't spend much time chasing up opinion poll results but I believe that current opinion, as measured by reasonable polling companies, is that while Rejoin does not yet have a majority, having left is considered a mistake.
New polling for B4B. 53% think Brexit has created more problems than it has solved. Only 15% think it has solved more problems than it has created.
Excluding don't-knows, that is a staggering 78% to 22% thinking Brexit has been a net negative. ~AA
I'll try again. Think of Brexit as a massive and brave personal decision, like, say, selling your home, buying a derelict new house, with the intention of totally doing it up, because it has great potential
A close relative of mine did this in Cornwall. Found a really grotty rundown six bedroom house being used as temporary shelter for migrant workers. He saw the potential (location, sea views, etc), and bought it; many of us thought he was mad. We continued to think he was mad as the refurb began, the house was so awful his family had to camp in the garden, then slowly expanded as they revamped room after room. SLOWLY
If you'd asked them, six months into the project, as they discovered dry rot in the basement and rats in the attic, whether the move was - so far - net negative or net positive, he and his family would have ruefully admitted: net negative. They were shivering without power, and eating takeaway pizza
Now, five years later, they live in a large, stunning house with a fantastic garden, in a great location, with glorious views of the sea. They probably spent £300k on the house, £300k on the refurb, it must be worth £1.5m now, if not a lot more. They doubled their money, easily, and they adore their house
Brexit is like that. Like buying a shitty house, but seeing the potential. Asking opinions halfway through the move is basically pointless
A nice try, but a ridiculously optimistic metaphor. Equally it could be like the fabled American who bought London Bridge. I expect, as I said in a previous post, it will be somewhere in between. Pointless, but perhaps not as bad as some of us feared.
It is an optimistic (and quite good) metaphor, but @Leon is dead right that it wasn't about seeing results immediately, but much more about the long term.
The rewards (if they exist) will be up the road, and the pain (which certainly exists, although not so bad) is here and now.
Unadulterated bollox. It will be all pain and no gain. More like poking yourself in the eye with a stick.
I fail to see quite what you're criticising - I certainly left open precisely the outcome you suggest.
I've not tried poking myself in the eye with a stick.
I would suggest not trying it for sure. I was not getting at you personally , just making point that we will be unlikely to see any benefits other than increased US butt licking.
That may be so. Certainly no great benefits have made their presence clear so far. However there are some good signs. The Commonwealth nations certainly seem to be well-dispositioned to the change.
We're certainly there though and we have to hope that things work out. I think they will, but as with the Brexit vote it's near to 50/50.
On the header, I think Starmer is determined not to get publicly involved in the sensitivities of the 'trans' debate(s). He knows that as soon as he comments, media coverage will focus for days, if not longer, on what he's said, and will open toxic wounds. He wants the focus to be on the 'big' issues, not peripheral (even if important) concerns. So he's avoiding the debate, just as he's avoiding re-opening Brexit wounds. It's probably good politics. I would hope that he reaches out to Rosie Duffield privately. I suspect he's broadly in support of those advocating pro-Trans + safe spaces for women, as is the current situation.
MPs who receive threats deserve very public support, not private words of support.
Mmm. Like whenever I mention the truly shocking level of sustained abuse that (say) Diane Abbot received for years and everyone says well, you know, public eye, and anyway it's cos she's a bit thick and can't do numbers, so what can you expect.
But Rosie Duffield gets a bit of online stick and - ooo - it's front page of the Sunday Times, and all over the Murdoch press, and it's the most TERRIBLE thing ever, and it just shows how HORRIBLE and IRRATIONAL all these weirdo lefty trans people are, how they
In response to @kinabalu - "I'd start with this question: What should the balance be between self-ID and medical certification in the process for changing gender?
Then based on the answer to this proceed to 2 more:
- What medical and other resource is required to make the process humane and efficient? - On what grounds should female only activities and spaces be able to exclude transwomen?"
I think this structure can generate a good debate and a good policy for any political party."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
Cheers thanks. I'd argue for the default the other way. Inclusion unless there's a good reason otherwise. I'm not sure about self-ID but whatever you do, self-ID is at the heart of it since only the person truly knows how they feel. It's in place in several countries without serious problems, I believe. We aren't cutting edge radical on this, not at all.
Great header anyway. I might try and see if I can write one putting the alternative (and less popular on here!) view.
Couple of things I'd like to ask you now if you have the time and inclination:
Do you know any transpeople?
Harking back to Mrs May's proposed GRA reforms, can you remember if you were passionately opposed to them at the time, or is this an issue you've plunged a lot more into in the last year or so?
Re the real practical harm to women if transwomen can self-ID and share their facilities/spaces. If - IF - you could be convinced that it'd be immeasurably less than the harm caused to transwomen if they can't, would this influence your view at all?
I ask this because I detect a strong theological strand to some of the GC feminist argument inc yours, ie that maybe it's not, deep down and fundamentally, about being massively scared about perverts pretending to be women in order to access and harm them, but more a profound objection to womanhood being divorced from biology, a feeling that the whole notion of being a woman is being in some way dissed if those born male can legally become one without going through a heavy mental and physical medical process - Would that, if you're honest, be what actually fires you up about this matter?
No way it should be allowed, too many nutjobs that will abuse it as we see with all these crackers going to women's jails. Women , ie a Female, should have safe places where they cannot be preyed on by ne'er do well men. Also re your theory , a man can never really become a woman , he may id and feel like it etc but you are what you are born sex wise , you can be whatever you want to yourself in life. Same applies to a woman in the opposite direction. Biologically impossible.
A whistleblower has leaked some more Wuhan Lab documents. They were applying for grants to do some deeply unsavoury stuff
"New #DRASTIC Leaked Document Expose
"Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) proposed injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into humanised and "batified" mice, and much, much more.
It is amazing that all this investigative journalism is still being done by a bunch of online amateurs, while mainstream journals and media just waffle and editorialise
I don't spend much time chasing up opinion poll results but I believe that current opinion, as measured by reasonable polling companies, is that while Rejoin does not yet have a majority, having left is considered a mistake.
New polling for B4B. 53% think Brexit has created more problems than it has solved. Only 15% think it has solved more problems than it has created.
Excluding don't-knows, that is a staggering 78% to 22% thinking Brexit has been a net negative. ~AA
I'll try again. Think of Brexit as a massive and brave personal decision, like, say, selling your home, buying a derelict new house, with the intention of totally doing it up, because it has great potential
A close relative of mine did this in Cornwall. Found a really grotty rundown six bedroom house being used as temporary shelter for migrant workers. He saw the potential (location, sea views, etc), and bought it; many of us thought he was mad. We continued to think he was mad as the refurb began, the house was so awful his family had to camp in the garden, then slowly expanded as they revamped room after room. SLOWLY
If you'd asked them, six months into the project, as they discovered dry rot in the basement and rats in the attic, whether the move was - so far - net negative or net positive, he and his family would have ruefully admitted: net negative. They were shivering without power, and eating takeaway pizza
Now, five years later, they live in a large, stunning house with a fantastic garden, in a great location, with glorious views of the sea. They probably spent £300k on the house, £300k on the refurb, it must be worth £1.5m now, if not a lot more. They doubled their money, easily, and they adore their house
Brexit is like that. Like buying a shitty house, but seeing the potential. Asking opinions halfway through the move is basically pointless
A nice try, but a ridiculously optimistic metaphor. Equally it could be like the fabled American who bought London Bridge. I expect, as I said in a previous post, it will be somewhere in between. Pointless, but perhaps not as bad as some of us feared.
It is an optimistic (and quite good) metaphor, but @Leon is dead right that it wasn't about seeing results immediately, but much more about the long term.
The rewards (if they exist) will be up the road, and the pain (which certainly exists, although not so bad) is here and now.
Unadulterated bollox. It will be all pain and no gain. More like poking yourself in the eye with a stick.
I fail to see quite what you're criticising - I certainly left open precisely the outcome you suggest.
I've not tried poking myself in the eye with a stick.
I would suggest not trying it for sure. I was not getting at you personally , just making point that we will be unlikely to see any benefits other than increased US butt licking.
That may be so. Certainly no great benefits have made their presence clear so far. However there are some good signs. The Commonwealth nations certainly seem to be well-dispositioned to the change.
We're certainly there though and we have to hope that things work out. I think they will, but as with the Brexit vote it's near to 50/50.
Early signs are not good at all , things will need to improve big time. They were just fortunate covid popped up so they can put all the blame on that.
A whistleblower has leaked some more Wuhan Lab documents. They were applying for grants to do some deeply unsavoury stuff
"New #DRASTIC Leaked Document Expose
"Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) proposed injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into humanised and "batified" mice, and much, much more.
It is amazing that all this investigative journalism is still being done by a bunch of online amateurs, while mainstream journals and media just waffle and editorialise
No money in journalism, even for journalists.
Not that I have investigated the investigative stuff sufficiently to judge it.
The Lancet, which published the infamous, lying, Covid-Wuhan letter denouncing "lab leak theories as conspiratorial racism" has, 19 months later, published an article suggesting a 180 degree handbrake turn. Incredible
"On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”.1 The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,2 which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”.
"The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.3 The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2"
So, when will Richard Horton resign, and when does Peter Daszak get dragged before a court?
Its quite incredible given the numerous scandals Horton just carries on untouched, controlling one of the eading medical journals of record.
Yes. Has he got some hold over the owners, or something? He has publicly disgraced himself, and devalued his journal, several times.
It is sad. The Lancet was a great British - and global - institution. Now it has to be read through a prism, like it is the Guardian or the Daily Express. What do they really mean? What agenda are they pushing? Does this benefit their Chinese backers?
Once a scientific journal reaches that level it needs a thoroughly deep clean. And, of course, a new editor.
The fact Horton knowingly published the original Daszak letter, with all its lies about "no conflict of interest" is a resignation matter by itself. No question.
You know NeoCons like Stephen Pollard were saying exactly that about The Lancet during the Iraq War, when it published numbers on civilian deaths?
I would hope even you can see the difference between what the Lancet did in publishing those numbers (which I think was factually accurate) and their publishing false claims and then refusing to retract them such as in the case of Andrew Wakefield or this case with the origins of the virus.
It's rather amazing how these huge new stations are served by near-Victorian train designs. One day a lot of the tunnels, rails and whatever will need to be replaced. We can't do it at the rates that these new stations cost. Or even worse at Crossrail rates! Whatever happened to Crossrail anyway? Someone should have lost his head at the Tower for associating it with our Queen.
On the header, I think Starmer is determined not to get publicly involved in the sensitivities of the 'trans' debate(s). He knows that as soon as he comments, media coverage will focus for days, if not longer, on what he's said, and will open toxic wounds. He wants the focus to be on the 'big' issues, not peripheral (even if important) concerns. So he's avoiding the debate, just as he's avoiding re-opening Brexit wounds. It's probably good politics. I would hope that he reaches out to Rosie Duffield privately. I suspect he's broadly in support of those advocating pro-Trans + safe spaces for women, as is the current situation.
MPs who receive threats deserve very public support, not private words of support.
Mmm. Like whenever I mention the truly shocking level of sustained abuse that (say) Diane Abbot received for years and everyone says well, you know, public eye, and anyway it's cos she's a bit thick and can't do numbers, so what can you expect.
But Rosie Duffield gets a bit of online stick and - ooo - it's front page of the Sunday Times, and all over the Murdoch press, and it's the most TERRIBLE thing ever, and it just shows how HORRIBLE and IRRATIONAL all these weirdo lefty trans people are, how they
In response to @kinabalu - "I'd start with this question: What should the balance be between self-ID and medical certification in the process for changing gender?
Then based on the answer to this proceed to 2 more:
- What medical and other resource is required to make the process humane and efficient? - On what grounds should female only activities and spaces be able to exclude transwomen?"
I think this structure can generate a good debate and a good policy for any political party."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
Cheers thanks. I'd argue for the default the other way. Inclusion unless there's a good reason otherwise. I'm not sure about self-ID but whatever you do, self-ID is at the heart of it since only the person truly knows how they feel. It's in place in several countries without serious problems, I believe. We aren't cutting edge radical on this, not at all.
Great header anyway. I might try and see if I can write one putting the alternative (and less popular on here!) view.
Couple of things I'd like to ask you now if you have the time and inclination:
Do you know any transpeople?
Harking back to Mrs May's proposed GRA reforms, can you remember if you were passionately opposed to them at the time, or is this an issue you've plunged a lot more into in the last year or so?
Re the real practical harm to women if transwomen can self-ID and share their facilities/spaces. If - IF - you could be convinced that it'd be immeasurably less than the harm caused to transwomen if they can't, would this influence your view at all?
I ask this because I detect a strong theological strand to some of the GC feminist argument inc yours, ie that maybe it's not, deep down and fundamentally, about being massively scared about perverts pretending to be women in order to access and harm them, but more a profound objection to womanhood being divorced from biology, a feeling that the whole notion of being a woman is being in some way dissed if those born male can legally become one without going through a heavy mental and physical medical process - Would that, if you're honest, be what actually fires you up about this matter?
Very good point about Abbott. Too many people use bullying allegations for partisan reasons. If you turn a blind eye to Abbott, you might as well to Duffield, Rees-Mogg, Cherry, Soubry, Farage, and everyone else. Partisan hypocrisy from all sides, sadly.
Yes, tale of two women.
And, sorry, tale of 2 posts too - got them mixed up in one!
On the header, I think Starmer is determined not to get publicly involved in the sensitivities of the 'trans' debate(s). He knows that as soon as he comments, media coverage will focus for days, if not longer, on what he's said, and will open toxic wounds. He wants the focus to be on the 'big' issues, not peripheral (even if important) concerns. So he's avoiding the debate, just as he's avoiding re-opening Brexit wounds. It's probably good politics. I would hope that he reaches out to Rosie Duffield privately. I suspect he's broadly in support of those advocating pro-Trans + safe spaces for women, as is the current situation.
MPs who receive threats deserve very public support, not private words of support.
Mmm. Like whenever I mention the truly shocking level of sustained abuse that (say) Diane Abbot received for years and everyone says well, you know, public eye, and anyway it's cos she's a bit thick and can't do numbers, so what can you expect.
But Rosie Duffield gets a bit of online stick and - ooo - it's front page of the Sunday Times, and all over the Murdoch press, and it's the most TERRIBLE thing ever, and it just shows how HORRIBLE and IRRATIONAL all these weirdo lefty trans people are, how they
In response to @kinabalu - "I'd start with this question: What should the balance be between self-ID and medical certification in the process for changing gender?
Then based on the answer to this proceed to 2 more:
- What medical and other resource is required to make the process humane and efficient? - On what grounds should female only activities and spaces be able to exclude transwomen?"
I think this structure can generate a good debate and a good policy for any political party."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
Cheers thanks. I'd argue for the default the other way. Inclusion unless there's a good reason otherwise. I'm not sure about self-ID but whatever you do, self-ID is at the heart of it since only the person truly knows how they feel. It's in place in several countries without serious problems, I believe. We aren't cutting edge radical on this, not at all.
Great header anyway. I might try and see if I can write one putting the alternative (and less popular on here!) view.
Couple of things I'd like to ask you now if you have the time and inclination:
Do you know any transpeople?
Harking back to Mrs May's proposed GRA reforms, can you remember if you were passionately opposed to them at the time, or is this an issue you've plunged a lot more into in the last year or so?
Re the real practical harm to women if transwomen can self-ID and share their facilities/spaces. If - IF - you could be convinced that it'd be immeasurably less than the harm caused to transwomen if they can't, would this influence your view at all?
I ask this because I detect a strong theological strand to some of the GC feminist argument inc yours, ie that maybe it's not, deep down and fundamentally, about being massively scared about perverts pretending to be women in order to access and harm them, but more a profound objection to womanhood being divorced from biology, a feeling that the whole notion of being a woman is being in some way dissed if those born male can legally become one without going through a heavy mental and physical medical process - Would that, if you're honest, be what actually fires you up about this matter?
Very good point about Abbott. Too many people use bullying allegations for partisan reasons. If you turn a blind eye to Abbott, you might as well to Duffield, Rees-Mogg, Cherry, Soubry, Farage, and everyone else. Partisan hypocrisy from all sides, sadly.
They key is not to let even valid bullying allegations deflect from genuine and reasonable political and personal criticisms. Abbott gets a lot of unfair and horrid abuse for which she deserves only sympathy, and she was a trailblazer for which she deserves recognition and respect. She also seems to be prone to more gaffes than is usual in a politician, makes allies of some terrible people,and has political views that a lot of people think are awful.
There's no need to deny or turn a blind eye to the undeserved crap she gets, because one can acknowledge it and respond to it, and then focus on legitimate reasons to give her the right amount of crap. Some of the others get unreasonable abuse as well, for which they also deserve sympathy, which only makes the focus on the proper reasons to critique them even stronger.
On topic, I rather like Ms Truss, and think she would make a good PM.
It's a dream situation for Labour and the Lib Dems though. Tories elect Truss? Racist Tories snub Rishi! Tories elect Rishi? Sexist Tories snub Truss! The fun they'll have - I bet they're salivating at the outrage they can concoct.
Rishi or Liz will beat SKS IMO
Not so sure about that BGO. Starmer certainly needs to up his game, but put Truss and Sunak under serious scrutiny and I think you will see the cracks appearing.
I don't spend much time chasing up opinion poll results but I believe that current opinion, as measured by reasonable polling companies, is that while Rejoin does not yet have a majority, having left is considered a mistake.
New polling for B4B. 53% think Brexit has created more problems than it has solved. Only 15% think it has solved more problems than it has created.
Excluding don't-knows, that is a staggering 78% to 22% thinking Brexit has been a net negative. ~AA
I'll try again. Think of Brexit as a massive and brave personal decision, like, say, selling your home, buying a derelict new house, with the intention of totally doing it up, because it has great potential
A close relative of mine did this in Cornwall. Found a really grotty rundown six bedroom house being used as temporary shelter for migrant workers. He saw the potential (location, sea views, etc), and bought it; many of us thought he was mad. We continued to think he was mad as the refurb began, the house was so awful his family had to camp in the garden, then slowly expanded as they revamped room after room. SLOWLY
If you'd asked them, six months into the project, as they discovered dry rot in the basement and rats in the attic, whether the move was - so far - net negative or net positive, he and his family would have ruefully admitted: net negative. They were shivering without power, and eating takeaway pizza
Now, five years later, they live in a large, stunning house with a fantastic garden, in a great location, with glorious views of the sea. They probably spent £300k on the house, £300k on the refurb, it must be worth £1.5m now, if not a lot more. They doubled their money, easily, and they adore their house
Brexit is like that. Like buying a shitty house, but seeing the potential. Asking opinions halfway through the move is basically pointless
A nice try, but a ridiculously optimistic metaphor. Equally it could be like the fabled American who bought London Bridge. I expect, as I said in a previous post, it will be somewhere in between. Pointless, but perhaps not as bad as some of us feared.
It is an optimistic (and quite good) metaphor, but @Leon is dead right that it wasn't about seeing results immediately, but much more about the long term.
The rewards (if they exist) will be up the road, and the pain (which certainly exists, although not so bad) is here and now.
Unadulterated bollox. It will be all pain and no gain. More like poking yourself in the eye with a stick.
I fail to see quite what you're criticising - I certainly left open precisely the outcome you suggest.
I've not tried poking myself in the eye with a stick.
I would suggest not trying it for sure. I was not getting at you personally , just making point that we will be unlikely to see any benefits other than increased US butt licking.
That may be so. Certainly no great benefits have made their presence clear so far. However there are some good signs. The Commonwealth nations certainly seem to be well-dispositioned to the change.
We're certainly there though and we have to hope that things work out. I think they will, but as with the Brexit vote it's near to 50/50.
Early signs are not good at all , things will need to improve big time. They were just fortunate covid popped up so they can put all the blame on that.
The bad things are still evolving - who imagined that lorry driving would be an issue? I think we knew that seasonal labourers on farms would be a problem, but I don't think anyone spotted drivers and somehow nobody saw restaurant staff (!).
There are the slightest of good things.
The covid argument works both ways as you well know.
🚨🚨BREAKING🚨🚨 UK natural gas wholesale price has settled at 189.65 pence per therm, the highest ever closing price (we have a higher intra-day price last week, but this is the highest closing price). That's ~$26 per mBtu, or an eye-watering $150 per barrel of oil equivalent https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1439986043554607104/photo/1
Our gas bill on leaving our old house is £1250! When I told the girl at eon, she said if no one from eon read the meter for a year we can complain and maybe not pay. They didn’t, so we could be in luck. Is this right?
My gf swears she sent them the readings but every bill is an estimate, though the electrics a reading in June
Think you will find you are on to plums. Keep the money handy , they are likely to get you and by that time will have added all the debt collector / bailliff charges if they do not have your new address.
The Lancet, which published the infamous, lying, Covid-Wuhan letter denouncing "lab leak theories as conspiratorial racism" has, 19 months later, published an article suggesting a 180 degree handbrake turn. Incredible
"On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”.1 The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,2 which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”.
"The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.3 The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2"
So, when will Richard Horton resign, and when does Peter Daszak get dragged before a court?
Its quite incredible given the numerous scandals Horton just carries on untouched, controlling one of the eading medical journals of record.
Yes. Has he got some hold over the owners, or something? He has publicly disgraced himself, and devalued his journal, several times.
It is sad. The Lancet was a great British - and global - institution. Now it has to be read through a prism, like it is the Guardian or the Daily Express. What do they really mean? What agenda are they pushing? Does this benefit their Chinese backers?
Once a scientific journal reaches that level it needs a thoroughly deep clean. And, of course, a new editor.
The fact Horton knowingly published the original Daszak letter, with all its lies about "no conflict of interest" is a resignation matter by itself. No question.
You know NeoCons like Stephen Pollard were saying exactly that about The Lancet during the Iraq War, when it published numbers on civilian deaths?
I would hope even you can see the difference between what the Lancet did in publishing those numbers (which I think was factually accurate) and their publishing false claims and then refusing to retract them such as in the case of Andrew Wakefield or this case with the origins of the virus.
It's absolutely astonishing that the Wakefield stuff alone didn't get a resignation.
I don't spend much time chasing up opinion poll results but I believe that current opinion, as measured by reasonable polling companies, is that while Rejoin does not yet have a majority, having left is considered a mistake.
New polling for B4B. 53% think Brexit has created more problems than it has solved. Only 15% think it has solved more problems than it has created.
Excluding don't-knows, that is a staggering 78% to 22% thinking Brexit has been a net negative. ~AA
I'll try again. Think of Brexit as a massive and brave personal decision, like, say, selling your home, buying a derelict new house, with the intention of totally doing it up, because it has great potential
A close relative of mine did this in Cornwall. Found a really grotty rundown six bedroom house being used as temporary shelter for migrant workers. He saw the potential (location, sea views, etc), and bought it; many of us thought he was mad. We continued to think he was mad as the refurb began, the house was so awful his family had to camp in the garden, then slowly expanded as they revamped room after room. SLOWLY
If you'd asked them, six months into the project, as they discovered dry rot in the basement and rats in the attic, whether the move was - so far - net negative or net positive, he and his family would have ruefully admitted: net negative. They were shivering without power, and eating takeaway pizza
Now, five years later, they live in a large, stunning house with a fantastic garden, in a great location, with glorious views of the sea. They probably spent £300k on the house, £300k on the refurb, it must be worth £1.5m now, if not a lot more. They doubled their money, easily, and they adore their house
Brexit is like that. Like buying a shitty house, but seeing the potential. Asking opinions halfway through the move is basically pointless
Lol. Love how your cheesy analogy involves kicking out some foreigners. And property price porn! Do you write for the Daily Mail?
Our gas bill on leaving our old house is £1250! When I told the girl at eon, she said if no one from eon read the meter for a year we can complain and maybe not pay. They didn’t, so we could be in luck. Is this right?
My gf swears she sent them the readings but every bill is an estimate, though the electrics a reading in June
Think you will find you are on to plums. Keep the money handy , they are likely to get you and by that time will have added all the debt collector / bailliff charges if they do not have your new address.
Whispers of Labour going back to electoral college in selecting next leader with it being 1/3rd PLP, 1/3rd trade unions & 1/3rd CLPs. Could be going to NEC Friday...
So Canada is voting - the final polls all over the place ranging from a 3.2% Conservative lead according to Forum Research and a 5.3% Liberal lead from EKOS.
You pay your money, you send your bookie on a nice winter holiday to Florida next January.
I've said elsewhere I think the Liberals will win more than 150 seats and the Conservatives fewer than 120 with the NDP in the low to mid-30s just ahead of BQ.
I am slightly worried the Conservative strength among the elderly will translate into a stronger likelihood to vote but the Liberals look on most polls to be holding firm in Ontario where they won 79 of the 121 ridings last time (Conservative 36, NDP 6). Half the Liberal caucus comes from Ontario.
The Conservatives won 33 of the 34 Alberta seats last time and 21 in the Prairies. They also did well in British Columbia winning 17 seats with the Liberals and NDP on 11 each.
In Quebec, the 78 ridings split - Liberal 35, BQ 32, Conservative 10 and NDP 1.
🚨🚨BREAKING🚨🚨 UK natural gas wholesale price has settled at 189.65 pence per therm, the highest ever closing price (we have a higher intra-day price last week, but this is the highest closing price). That's ~$26 per mBtu, or an eye-watering $150 per barrel of oil equivalent https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1439986043554607104/photo/1
(Translation: check some facts before believing Scott's implications about UK vs EU)
Yep, electricity prices are only different because the lack of interconnects means there is 2/3GW of power that would be heading towards the UK that cannot currently do so.
Between that and a lack of wind the electricity price crunch is far shorter term than the gas price issues.
Whispers of Labour going back to electoral college in selecting next leader with it being 1/3rd PLP, 1/3rd trade unions & 1/3rd CLPs. Could be going to NEC Friday...
Whispers of Labour going back to electoral college in selecting next leader with it being 1/3rd PLP, 1/3rd trade unions & 1/3rd CLPs. Could be going to NEC Friday...
Have to admit, that I am not sure what this caused to happen last time round.
But is this not essentially a jump 40 years into the past?
Whispers of Labour going back to electoral college in selecting next leader with it being 1/3rd PLP, 1/3rd trade unions & 1/3rd CLPs. Could be going to NEC Friday...
Have to admit, that I am not sure what this caused to happen last time round.
But is this not essentially a jump 40 years into the past?
Early 1980s? Today's fossilised Labourites and Thatcherites will love the idea.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Bulgaria holds its third election of 2021 on November 14th.
The latest poll from Alpha Research (changes since July):
GERB/SDS: 21.1% (-2.4) There Is a Nation (ITN): 16.9% (-7.2) Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.5% (+3.1) Democratic Bulgaria: 13.2% (+0.6) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.6% (-1.1) Stand Up! Mafia, Get Out!: 4.1% (-0.9) Revival: 3.5% (+0.5)
Into the mix we have to throw a new party, formed only yesterday, called We Continue the Change. A Trend poll prompted for them and they polled 9%.
We'll have to see how this one settles in the next few weeks.
1. Add 4 new SCOTUS Justices 2. Accede Puerto Rico and DC as the 51st and 52nd States 3. Pass a new Voting Rights Act
All entirely legal to be done. After the way the GOP politicised SCOTUS, denied Obama's nominee and rushed through a replacement then before the election it could maybe all be passed together as the Karma's A Bitch Act 2021
On the header, I think Starmer is determined not to get publicly involved in the sensitivities of the 'trans' debate(s). He knows that as soon as he comments, media coverage will focus for days, if not longer, on what he's said, and will open toxic wounds. He wants the focus to be on the 'big' issues, not peripheral (even if important) concerns. So he's avoiding the debate, just as he's avoiding re-opening Brexit wounds. It's probably good politics. I would hope that he reaches out to Rosie Duffield privately. I suspect he's broadly in support of those advocating pro-Trans + safe spaces for women, as is the current situation.
MPs who receive threats deserve very public support, not private words of support.
Mmm. Like whenever I mention the truly shocking level of sustained abuse that (say) Diane Abbot received for years and everyone says well, you know, public eye, and anyway it's cos she's a bit thick and can't do numbers, so what can you expect.
But Rosie Duffield gets a bit of online stick and - ooo - it's front page of the Sunday Times, and all over the Murdoch press, and it's the most TERRIBLE thing ever, and it just shows how HORRIBLE and IRRATIONAL all these weirdo lefty trans people are, how they
In response to @kinabalu - "I'd start with this question: What should the balance be between self-ID and medical certification in the process for changing gender?
Then based on the answer to this proceed to 2 more:
- What medical and other resource is required to make the process humane and efficient? - On what grounds should female only activities and spaces be able to exclude transwomen?"
I think this structure can generate a good debate and a good policy for any political party."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
Cheers thanks. I'd argue for the default the other way. Inclusion unless there's a good reason otherwise. I'm not sure about self-ID but whatever you do, self-ID is at the heart of it since only the person truly knows how they feel. It's in place in several countries without serious problems, I believe. We aren't cutting edge radical on this, not at all.
Great header anyway. I might try and see if I can write one putting the alternative (and less popular on here!) view.
Couple of things I'd like to ask you now if you have the time and inclination:
Do you know any transpeople?
Harking back to Mrs May's proposed GRA reforms, can you remember if you were passionately opposed to them at the time, or is this an issue you've plunged a lot more into in the last year or so?
Re the real practical harm to women if transwomen can self-ID and share their facilities/spaces. If - IF - you could be convinced that it'd be immeasurably less than the harm caused to transwomen if they can't, would this influence your view at all?
I ask this because I detect a strong theological strand to some of the GC feminist argument inc yours, ie that maybe it's not, deep down and fundamentally, about being massively scared about perverts pretending to be women in order to access and harm them, but more a profound objection to womanhood being divorced from biology, a feeling that the whole notion of being a woman is being in some way dissed if those born male can legally become one without going through a heavy mental and physical medical process - Would that, if you're honest, be what actually fires you up about this matter?
"Weirdo lefty trans people" ffs, you can't steal a whole demographic like that. Or perhaps you can: there are genuinely trans people whose situation in no way maps on to their political leanings - why on earth should it? - and lefties on their usual quest for something to be wankers about, who have arbitrarily settled on gender dysphoria because antisemitism is sooo last decade.
And why does this subject so reliably throw up outrageous whataboutery from people who should know better? The reason we are talking about Rosie Duffield, is that Rosie Duffield is what we are talking about. You go on about Diane Abbot, but I note you haven't uttered a squeak about Alfred Dreyfus all evening. What about him, hey?
Whispers of Labour going back to electoral college in selecting next leader with it being 1/3rd PLP, 1/3rd trade unions & 1/3rd CLPs. Could be going to NEC Friday...
Have to admit, that I am not sure what this caused to happen last time round.
But is this not essentially a jump 40 years into the past?
The Conservatives want to take ALL elections back to FPTP so that would be a pretty big jump back for London (about twenty years).
Looks like first polls close in the Atlantic provinces at midnight BST, which is when the coverage below starts. Expecting another Liberal minority, but may be close in seats between Lib & Con - if Lib + NDP <170 then Trudeau will struggle to stay as PM. Counting normally very fast (at polling stations) but slower this year due to Covid and more postal voting etc so may be tomorrow or later in week for results in close ridings.
I don't spend much time chasing up opinion poll results but I believe that current opinion, as measured by reasonable polling companies, is that while Rejoin does not yet have a majority, having left is considered a mistake.
New polling for B4B. 53% think Brexit has created more problems than it has solved. Only 15% think it has solved more problems than it has created.
Excluding don't-knows, that is a staggering 78% to 22% thinking Brexit has been a net negative. ~AA
I'll try again. Think of Brexit as a massive and brave personal decision, like, say, selling your home, buying a derelict new house, with the intention of totally doing it up, because it has great potential
A close relative of mine did this in Cornwall. Found a really grotty rundown six bedroom house being used as temporary shelter for migrant workers. He saw the potential (location, sea views, etc), and bought it; many of us thought he was mad. We continued to think he was mad as the refurb began, the house was so awful his family had to camp in the garden, then slowly expanded as they revamped room after room. SLOWLY
If you'd asked them, six months into the project, as they discovered dry rot in the basement and rats in the attic, whether the move was - so far - net negative or net positive, he and his family would have ruefully admitted: net negative. They were shivering without power, and eating takeaway pizza
Now, five years later, they live in a large, stunning house with a fantastic garden, in a great location, with glorious views of the sea. They probably spent £300k on the house, £300k on the refurb, it must be worth £1.5m now, if not a lot more. They doubled their money, easily, and they adore their house
Brexit is like that. Like buying a shitty house, but seeing the potential. Asking opinions halfway through the move is basically pointless
Lol. Love how your cheesy analogy involves kicking out some foreigners. And property price porn! Do you write for the Daily Mail?
It's an interesting analogy, but
1) It's not just your house, it's everyone else's house as well 2) You ignore the ones who crash and burn and end up selling at a massive loss.
I quite like watching "Grand Designs" now and again, but it makes better tv than a programme called "Almighty Fuck-ups"
Bulgaria holds its third election of 2021 on November 14th.
The latest poll from Alpha Research (changes since July):
GERB/SDS: 21.1% (-2.4) There Is a Nation (ITN): 16.9% (-7.2) Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.5% (+3.1) Democratic Bulgaria: 13.2% (+0.6) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.6% (-1.1) Stand Up! Mafia, Get Out!: 4.1% (-0.9) Revival: 3.5% (+0.5)
Into the mix we have to throw a new party, formed only yesterday, called We Continue the Change. A Trend poll prompted for them and they polled 9%.
We'll have to see how this one settles in the next few weeks.
Thanks and very interesting, could I be cheeky and ask how the party's alien? particularly the new one 'We continue the change' that you mention?
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
1. Add 4 new SCOTUS Justices 2. Accede Puerto Rico and DC as the 51st and 52nd States 3. Pass a new Voting Rights Act
All entirely legal to be done. After the way the GOP politicised SCOTUS, denied Obama's nominee and rushed through a replacement then before the election it could maybe all be passed together as the Karma's A Bitch Act 2021
I agree wholeheartedly, but I foresee civil war in the US if it happens.
1. Add 4 new SCOTUS Justices 2. Accede Puerto Rico and DC as the 51st and 52nd States 3. Pass a new Voting Rights Act
All entirely legal to be done. After the way the GOP politicised SCOTUS, denied Obama's nominee and rushed through a replacement then before the election it could maybe all be passed together as the Karma's A Bitch Act 2021
I agree wholeheartedly, but I foresee civil war in the US if it happens.
There's every risk of it, or worse, if it doesn't too.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Outrageous. Traditionally your first post should be an alarming and factually incorrect post about how Covid is shortly going out of control. What are you doing trying to contribute to the debate in a measured way?
1. Add 4 new SCOTUS Justices 2. Accede Puerto Rico and DC as the 51st and 52nd States 3. Pass a new Voting Rights Act
All entirely legal to be done. After the way the GOP politicised SCOTUS, denied Obama's nominee and rushed through a replacement then before the election it could maybe all be passed together as the Karma's A Bitch Act 2021
I think the 'Democrat senator for West Virginia' joe Manchin would be hesitant to support that and without is vote, the democrats so not have a majority in the senate. if some how the democrats do get an extra senator from a special election then I would expect to see that happening.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome to the board!!
I wont comment specifically on your points only because I feel currently out of my depth on this issue and am doing some reading to try and get a handle on all the ins and outs.
Bulgaria holds its third election of 2021 on November 14th.
The latest poll from Alpha Research (changes since July):
GERB/SDS: 21.1% (-2.4) There Is a Nation (ITN): 16.9% (-7.2) Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.5% (+3.1) Democratic Bulgaria: 13.2% (+0.6) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.6% (-1.1) Stand Up! Mafia, Get Out!: 4.1% (-0.9) Revival: 3.5% (+0.5)
Into the mix we have to throw a new party, formed only yesterday, called We Continue the Change. A Trend poll prompted for them and they polled 9%.
We'll have to see how this one settles in the next few weeks.
Thanks and very interesting, could I be cheeky and ask how the party's alien? particularly the new one 'We continue the change' that you mention?
As far as I can tell (and trying very loosely to equate to UK politics)>
GERB/SDS: Conservative Party (May) There Is A Nation: Conservative Party (Johnson but without the hostility to the EU) Coalition for Bulgaria: Labour Democratic Bulgaria: Conservative Party (Cameron) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: Liberal Democrats Stand Up! Mafia, Get Out! No real equivalent - anti-corruption party. Revival: No real equivalent (Nationalist, Populist want to unite Bulgaria and North Macedonia)
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
Our gas bill on leaving our old house is £1250! When I told the girl at eon, she said if no one from eon read the meter for a year we can complain and maybe not pay. They didn’t, so we could be in luck. Is this right?
My gf swears she sent them the readings but every bill is an estimate, though the electrics a reading in June
Think you will find you are on to plums. Keep the money handy , they are likely to get you and by that time will have added all the debt collector / bailliff charges if they do not have your new address.
It usually revolves around estimated readings and actual readings.
If you have an actual reading on a date, ideally but not necessarily with a dated photo, they will cave.
Just had £250 removed from my bill when they had overestimated consumption.
Looking at our bill from Aug-Oct 2020, they estimated our use of Gas at £9.09, and £139.34 for the next 12 months, so something was up, I guess we underpaid
Going back to the subjects of gas supply and also practical climate issues, a question based on a lack of knowledge. (So hoping to be enlightened).
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes. 2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
Going back to the subjects of gas supply and also practical climate issues, a question based on a lack of knowledge. (So hoping to be enlightened).
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes. 2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome, not sure where I am on this one, but you make your arguments well, as does cyclefree.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
Going back to the subjects of gas supply and also practical climate issues, a question based on a lack of knowledge. (So hoping to be enlightened).
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes. 2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
CO2 is CO2.
That's what I thought. I suppose I was wondering if there was some technical reason around impurities that I was unaware of that makes it impractical. Or as I say, maybe our leadership are just fecking useless.... again.
Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all passed Texas
Roberts and the 3 Liberal Judges were powerless.
If i were Biden i would add 2 Liberals to SCOTUS before mid term
Even then there is a Republican Maj with Roberts effectively having the casting vote
Absolutely agreed he should. At a minimum 2, I'd prefer 4.
The Dems will do no such thing because they are the ones who benefit from the Supreme Court feigning some measure of political independance. If the Dems move first, they can't complain when the next Republican packs twice as many in and gets a case through saying aborton laws are a matter for democracy - it's not the GOP using the court to take their position beyond debate.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Let me guess: you are not trans, you don't know any trans people well, and are a lefty looking for a cause. How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously if you label this piece "deeply transphobic"? Let me tell you a secret: trans people are not all the same.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
Actually, views on abortion is Texas are actually fairly finely balanced.
The statistics are actually pretty eye opening. There are only states with 72 electoral votes (all deep Red) where there is a clear majority (i.e. 7.5% of greater lead) for abortion being illegal in "all or nearly all circumstances", against 272 where there is a clear majority for the opposite proposition.
Texas's abortion law - which contains no provisions for rape or incest - would almost certainly lose a referendum in the State
In Florida, there's a 17 point gap (57 vs 40) in favour of legal abortion. Yet the Republican legislature are about to force through a copy cat of the Texas law there.
The abolition of Roe vs Wade would be mana from Heaven for the Dems. It would act as an extraordinary recruiting sergeant for the party ahead of the midterms.
Going back to the subjects of gas supply and also practical climate issues, a question based on a lack of knowledge. (So hoping to be enlightened).
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes. 2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
CO2 is CO2.
Isn't CO2 that is manufactured classified as 'food safe CO2'? May not be the technical term but it does require to be food grade certified doesn't it? Again maybe not the technical term.
Is the CO2 that is a by product considered food grade?
Sort of like the difference between using the meat of a pig that you slaughter and the meat of a pig that you find already dead. The latter to the best of my knowledge wouldn't be food safe.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
Don't agree with that. A trans woman is a woman regardless of whether any treatment etc has taken place. He has transitioned into being a woman (a she) - and therefore IS a woman - as long as we are strictly talking about gender.
Going back to the subjects of gas supply and also practical climate issues, a question based on a lack of knowledge. (So hoping to be enlightened).
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes. 2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
CO2 is CO2.
Isn't CO2 that is manufactured classified as 'food safe CO2'? May not be the technical term but it does require to be food grade certified doesn't it? Again maybe not the technical term.
Is the CO2 that is a by product considered food grade?
Sort of like the difference between using the meat of a pig that you slaughter and the meat of a pig that you find already dead. The latter to the best of my knowledge wouldn't be food safe.
I guess that's just how pure the CO2 is. If you had some way to extract only CO2 from the emissions of a power plant it would be more than acceptable for foodstuffs.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
That ignores the fact that these slurs are levied at fully transitioned trans-women as well. Repeating them without clarification shows an insensitivity for the struggle even those who completed the transition, let alone those in the middle (transition is not done on an out-patient basis). That insensitivity to a marginalised group can only be interpreted as hostility.
The entire basis of PC is that words and phrases have accrued connotations, and we all need to be careful that we don't imply things we don't mean through careless use of them.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
Don't agree with that. A trans woman is a woman regardless of whether any treatment etc has taken place. He has transitioned into being a woman (a she) - and therefore IS a woman - as long as we are strictly talking about gender.
I disagree, there's a process to follow for transitioning.
Simply saying "I have transitioned" and then expecting an immediate violation of safeguarding etc on the basis of that doesn't make it so.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
I'm with you on most of the stuff on this US matter, except that control over people's bodies generally is, like everything else, ultimately democratically decided. That is not going to change.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
The arms race was started at the end of the 18th century. There is nothing new in these arguments about nominations and political balance of the SCOTUS.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
Actually, views on abortion is Texas are actually fairly finely balanced.
The statistics are actually pretty eye opening. There are only states with 72 electoral votes (all deep Red) where there is a clear majority (i.e. 7.5% of greater lead) for abortion being illegal in "all or nearly all circumstances", against 272 where there is a clear majority for the opposite proposition.
Texas's abortion law - which contains no provisions for rape or incest - would almost certainly lose a referendum in the State
In Florida, there's a 17 point gap (57 vs 40) in favour of legal abortion. Yet the Republican legislature are about to force through a copy cat of the Texas law there.
The abolition of Roe vs Wade would be mana from Heaven for the Dems. It would act as an extraordinary recruiting sergeant for the party ahead of the midterms.
Better get that voter suppression up and moving in that case.
Going back to the subjects of gas supply and also practical climate issues, a question based on a lack of knowledge. (So hoping to be enlightened).
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes. 2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
CO2 is CO2.
Isn't CO2 that is manufactured classified as 'food safe CO2'? May not be the technical term but it does require to be food grade certified doesn't it? Again maybe not the technical term.
Is the CO2 that is a by product considered food grade?
Sort of like the difference between using the meat of a pig that you slaughter and the meat of a pig that you find already dead. The latter to the best of my knowledge wouldn't be food safe.
I should be more clear
The gaseous emissions that Drax extracts is going to contain a lot more than just CO2. It'll contain various particulate matter, some CO and other stuff. You could not just take it and use it in food preparation.
But separating the CO2 from the rest of the stuff is far from impossible.
HOWEVER, I'm also not sure that we have any dedicated CO2 pipelines in the UK, so getting the gas from the power station to where it needs to be used is another challenge.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
I'm with you on most of the stuff on this US matter, except that control over people's bodies generally is, like everything else, ultimately democratically decided. That is not going to change.
Except it's not there already. Its decided by the Courts and has been for a very long time.
Because while over here we have Parliamentary sovereignty and can change anything we please via Parliament ... Over there people have rights that the Congress can't violate.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
Don't agree with that. A trans woman is a woman regardless of whether any treatment etc has taken place. He has transitioned into being a woman (a she) - and therefore IS a woman - as long as we are strictly talking about gender.
Why would that be true? Why can't they have made an appalling mistake? That's what Bell in Bell vs Tavistock says happened to them. So do you think they WERE a woman for a bit and then stopped being, or what?
Going back to the subjects of gas supply and also practical climate issues, a question based on a lack of knowledge. (So hoping to be enlightened).
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes. 2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
Problem is that if Drax bottle the stuff and flog it to the food industry, it ends up in the atmosphere so they can't claim their green wonga for sticking it underground somewhere.
This being after they have generated said Co2 by greenly cutting down forests in the USA, greenly shiping the wood across the Atlantic on diesel powered ships and greenly burning it to create power, which this is obviously so much better for the environment than burning coal that it should be heavily subsidised.
Have I mentioned before that the whole green agenda is mostly an excuse for the little people to pay more, whilst a special class of person gets to jet round the place and go to important meetings, where they decide stuff like this...
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
I'm with you on most of the stuff on this US matter, except that control over people's bodies generally is, like everything else, ultimately democratically decided. That is not going to change.
Except it's not there already. Its decided by the Courts and has been for a very long time.
Because while over here we have Parliamentary sovereignty and can change anything we please via Parliament ... Over there people have rights that the Congress can't violate.
And the politicians decide who sits on the court. It's a longer term game, but its still about using your democratic representatives to stack the deck, and so democratically decided, it isn't some carved in stone rule from the gods that democratic representatives have been or are powerless to impact.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
The arms race was started at the end of the 18th century. There is nothing new in these arguments about nominations and political balance of the SCOTUS.
No, but it'll be pretended it is.
It's interesting how quickly some things get accepted as just 'the way things are' and people genuinely think it has always been that way, or that specific rules and principles were always adhered to.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
The arms race was started at the end of the 18th century. There is nothing new in these arguments about nominations and political balance of the SCOTUS.
Agreed.
So the Democrats should continue to fight the arms race while they have the chance.
The GOP haven't and won't give up their chances to do so. Which is why they currently have a 6-3 majority.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
The arms race was started at the end of the 18th century. There is nothing new in these arguments about nominations and political balance of the SCOTUS.
It's odd to think that the last 500 years have been about us as those in our islands.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
Your probably right about that. At the very least, try primary legislation at the federal level.
Wow Biden needs to flood SC if that goes the wrong way
He'd be mad if he does that over this. That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
It won't be the start of the arms race. The arms race already started and the GOP shenanigans over SCOTUS Justices has opened the door to this.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
Because in a democracy ultimately either everything is democratic or nothing is. Trying to set the fashionable morals of the day in stone always ends in tears eventually (this is currently playing out in the USA with the destruction of the SC, because it tried to do just this with RvW 50 years ago).
Given how it is dominating every thread on here, is it feasible that Sir Keir is going to ignore the trans issue at Labour's conference and it will go away?
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
The entire basis of PC is that words and phrases have accrued connotations, and we all need to be careful that we don't imply things we don't mean through careless use of them.
That's true, but as is oft criticised about some PC in practice it can appear less about being less careless and more about controlling what is permissable expression around matters of opnion. So on balance I'm usually of the view that better to risk the negatives of that than overly constrain. That is, apparently worthless comments and views get as protected as carefully balanced argument, as you don't want to lose the latter.
As it relates to trans, 'men in dresses' is a flippant, dismissive way of engaging with the matter at hand, it's not helpful if one accepts the premise of transitioning even if you take issue with at what point someone is regarded as such.
And yet if I am totally honest I do have an issue generally with self identification, of most things really, and the idea that cannot be legitimately challenged. It crosses over with some hurtful and unfair stuff on this issue, with those who do deny that being trans is even a real thing, but though I don't agree with that at all, I do have an issue with the seemingly competing idea that whatever someone says goes and that's an end to it, and if you do then you are exactly the same as the most vicious transphobes out there.
There's a range of opinion on this subject, and it is complex and fraught, and though I think I am a reasonable man others might find my stance on some of it as bigoted, but even then not all bigotry is the same, not all sins are equal. The problem with this debate is, even more than racial discussions, fall on the wrong side and you immediately get lumped in with the very worst examples of that side.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
That ignores the fact that these slurs are levied at fully transitioned trans-women as well. Repeating them without clarification shows an insensitivity for the struggle even those who completed the transition, let alone those in the middle (transition is not done on an out-patient basis). That insensitivity to a marginalised group can only be interpreted as hostility.
The entire basis of PC is that words and phrases have accrued connotations, and we all need to be careful that we don't imply things we don't mean through careless use of them.
Hi, everyone. It is technically my first post, but I have been lurking for many, many years. The thread header has finally made me feel I should contribute.
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
Welcome but Cyclefree's language is entirely correct.
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
Don't agree with that. A trans woman is a woman regardless of whether any treatment etc has taken place. He has transitioned into being a woman (a she) - and therefore IS a woman - as long as we are strictly talking about gender.
I disagree, there's a process to follow for transitioning.
Simply saying "I have transitioned" and then expecting an immediate violation of safeguarding etc on the basis of that doesn't make it so.
My particular beef, as always, is the mangling of language. The word 'woman' is being used to mean 'someone who identifies as a woman' rather than 'biologically female human ' - which is the sense in which it has always been used, and is a profoundly useful term. I resent that word being taken away from me. Also, the definition of woman as 'someone who identifies as a woman' is strangely circular. If that is really all it means, why bother identifying as one?
Evolve Politics @evolvepolitics Police cars revolving light | NEW: Keir Starmer is considering banning ordinary Labour members from voting in Labour Leadership elections
I see @Cyclefree is promoting this on Twitter with the Graham Linehan-endorsed hashtag #WomenWontWheesht, which tbh doesn't really endear the article to me.
Given how it is dominating every thread on here, is it feasible that Sir Keir is going to ignore the trans issue at Labour's conference and it will go away?
Comments
Wasnt he in a minority over the Texas ruling?
The Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland briefed the lobby press, on the record, and their first reaction was "how can verify if anything he just said is in fact true?"
He has debased the office to that extent.
And still the fanbois cheer...
I hadn't heard about the 'Maverick Party', which advocates secession of parts of Canada.
I was going to joke about the article's italisiced amazement on behalf of its american audience at the idea Trudeau could come second in seats and stay PM, except even here people seem to struggle with how PMs are chosen.
Volcanoes: Listening to R4. I wonder if the Romans had volcanologists? They never quite predict anything, and seem astonishgly complacent. A bit like economists.
As somebody who was cheerleading in my own small way for Lis Truss, on FB and here 2 years ago in the tory leadership election that Boris would eventually win, I'm pleased to see she is progressing and is now that is being recognised by a wider audience,
She has long been most popular in the freedom loving wing of the party, and perhaps that's the same people who like me have left of the lockdowns and authoritarian policy's of the government. I suspect there are not enough people like me to make a defiance in any leaderships election.
But Rosie Duffield gets a bit of online stick and - ooo - it's front page of the Sunday Times, and all over the Murdoch press, and it's the most TERRIBLE thing ever, and it just shows how HORRIBLE and IRRATIONAL all these weirdo lefty trans people are, how they Cheers thanks. I'd argue for the default the other way. Inclusion unless there's a good reason otherwise. I'm not sure about self-ID but whatever you do, self-ID is at the heart of it since only the person truly knows how they feel. It's in place in several countries without serious problems, I believe. We aren't cutting edge radical on this, not at all.
Great header anyway. I might try and see if I can write one putting the alternative (and less popular on here!) view.
Couple of things I'd like to ask you now if you have the time and inclination:
Do you know any transpeople?
Harking back to Mrs May's proposed GRA reforms, can you remember if you were passionately opposed to them at the time, or is this an issue you've plunged a lot more into in the last year or so?
Re the real practical harm to women if transwomen can self-ID and share their facilities/spaces. If - IF - you could be convinced that it'd be immeasurably less than the harm caused to transwomen if they can't, would this influence your view at all?
I ask this because I detect a strong theological strand to some of the GC feminist argument inc yours, ie that maybe it's not, deep down and fundamentally, about being massively scared about perverts pretending to be women in order to access and harm them, but more a profound objection to womanhood being divorced from biology, a feeling that the whole notion of being a woman is being in some way dissed if those born male can legally become one without going through a heavy mental and physical medical process - Would that, if you're honest, be what actually fires you up about this matter?
EFTA wouldn't want us either. We're too big. We know what happens in any organisation where one member is too mighty. Its interests tend to predominate, and the others complain, loudly and frequently, of their sufferings. This doesn't make it impossible for the show to stay in the road but, as we all know from other oft-discussed examples, it can make it rather challenging.
In Texas a rapist could bounty hunt a raped woman or even a raped girl physician $10k??
However if Roe v Wade is repealed that also means that Obergefell v Hedges which legalised gay marriage across the US could also be open to challenge given the more socially conservative current SC makeup and repealed in a few of the most conservative states even if most US states still keep gay marriage legal
The new London Underground stations are fantastic. Have a ride on them while they're still totally new if you live in the area.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58621491
We're certainly there though and we have to hope that things work out. I think they will, but as with the Brexit vote it's near to 50/50.
"New #DRASTIC Leaked Document Expose
"Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) proposed injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into humanised and "batified" mice, and much, much more.
https://drasticresearch.org/2021/09/20/1583/
https://twitter.com/BillyBostickson/status/1439942978995253250?s=20
It is amazing that all this investigative journalism is still being done by a bunch of online amateurs, while mainstream journals and media just waffle and editorialise
Who wakes up before sunrise to ride the new Tube?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58622385
Not that I have investigated the investigative stuff sufficiently to judge it.
And, sorry, tale of 2 posts too - got them mixed up in one!
There's no need to deny or turn a blind eye to the undeserved crap she gets, because one can acknowledge it and respond to it, and then focus on legitimate reasons to give her the right amount of crap. Some of the others get unreasonable abuse as well, for which they also deserve sympathy, which only makes the focus on the proper reasons to critique them even stronger.
Love the profile pic.
There are the slightest of good things.
The covid argument works both ways as you well know.
Why is UK gas price so much higher than anywhere else in Europe?
#GasCrisis #gas
https://twitter.com/Lelant1/status/1439996870617616388
Replying to
@Lelant1
UK and EU wholesale gas prices very much the same
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1439997019683164160
(Translation: check some facts before believing Scott's implications about UK vs EU)
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-9541649/ASK-TONY-Eon-hiked-energy-bill-600-one-month.html
Roberts and the 3 Liberal Judges were powerless.
If i were Biden i would add 2 Liberals to SCOTUS before mid term
Even then there is a Republican Maj with Roberts effectively having the casting vote
It usually revolves around estimated readings and actual readings.
If you have an actual reading on a date, ideally but not necessarily with a dated photo, they will cave.
Just had £250 removed from my bill when they had overestimated consumption.
@AaronBastani
HERE WE GO?
Whispers of Labour going back to electoral college in selecting next leader with it being 1/3rd PLP, 1/3rd trade unions & 1/3rd CLPs. Could be going to NEC Friday...
So Canada is voting - the final polls all over the place ranging from a 3.2% Conservative lead according to Forum Research and a 5.3% Liberal lead from EKOS.
You pay your money, you send your bookie on a nice winter holiday to Florida next January.
I've said elsewhere I think the Liberals will win more than 150 seats and the Conservatives fewer than 120 with the NDP in the low to mid-30s just ahead of BQ.
I am slightly worried the Conservative strength among the elderly will translate into a stronger likelihood to vote but the Liberals look on most polls to be holding firm in Ontario where they won 79 of the 121 ridings last time (Conservative 36, NDP 6). Half the Liberal caucus comes from Ontario.
The Conservatives won 33 of the 34 Alberta seats last time and 21 in the Prairies. They also did well in British Columbia winning 17 seats with the Liberals and NDP on 11 each.
In Quebec, the 78 ridings split - Liberal 35, BQ 32, Conservative 10 and NDP 1.
Plenty to watch for the night owls.
Between that and a lack of wind the electricity price crunch is far shorter term than the gas price issues.
But is this not essentially a jump 40 years into the past?
It is disappointing that Cyclefree, who wrote so much on the subject of Corbyn Labour's blind spots to bigotry in the form of antisemitism, has now fallen so deeply into her own blind spot.
To be clear, this isn't about condemning abuse and intimidation of people like Rosie Duffield. Of course, such behaviour is contemptible (not to mention counterproductive). Nor is this even about concerns over protection of women's spaces if gender recognition is made too easy to abuse.
Also "chest-feeding", if indeed that term is used, is stupid. What organ are you using to nurse the child if not a breast?
As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And this article, while articulating concerns about intimidation of those who are concerned about protections for women, does so in a way that is deeply transphobic. It is so because wording goes out of its way to pay no respect whatsoever to the validity of trans people as trans people.
"in response to a question from Justin Webb on the Today programme about whether there was anywhere biological males should not go – replied “No, no”."
I haven't seen the programme, but I highly doubt it went down like that. I'm sure the question was about transwomen specifically. By paraphrasing it in this way, Cyclefree is denying that transwomen are any different at any level from any man. They are basically just "men in dresses", a known anti-trans slur that she has in fact used in the past few days, but would never abide, from her writing on Corbynism, its antisemitic equivalents such as Zio or even the coded used of theoretically objective term Zionist.
"let along something to be recategorized out of existence to assuage the feelings of some men."
If the concern is predatory men abusing self-ID to access women's protected spaces, this is clearly not targeted at them, because recognition of trans people is not intended to protect their feelings, obviously. Rather it is targeted at transwomen, again denying that they are indeed so. Just "men in dresses".
Denying the validity of transwomen, especially when conflating them with trojan horse predation, i.e. something to feared, is the very definition of transphobia.
I'm sure Cyclefree doesn't want to be associated with any form of bigotry, hence brisling against being labelled transphobic, but if you deny the legitimacy of trans people and are blase about using insensitive and demeaning terminology to refer to them, then how else would you describe your attitude towards them?
Clearly, we have a long way to go, but at least these issues are being talked about.
The latest poll from Alpha Research (changes since July):
GERB/SDS: 21.1% (-2.4)
There Is a Nation (ITN): 16.9% (-7.2)
Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.5% (+3.1)
Democratic Bulgaria: 13.2% (+0.6)
Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.6% (-1.1)
Stand Up! Mafia, Get Out!: 4.1% (-0.9)
Revival: 3.5% (+0.5)
Into the mix we have to throw a new party, formed only yesterday, called We Continue the Change. A Trend poll prompted for them and they polled 9%.
We'll have to see how this one settles in the next few weeks.
1. Add 4 new SCOTUS Justices
2. Accede Puerto Rico and DC as the 51st and 52nd States
3. Pass a new Voting Rights Act
All entirely legal to be done. After the way the GOP politicised SCOTUS, denied Obama's nominee and rushed through a replacement then before the election it could maybe all be passed together as the Karma's A Bitch Act 2021
And why does this subject so reliably throw up outrageous whataboutery from people who should know better? The reason we are talking about Rosie Duffield, is that Rosie Duffield is what we are talking about. You go on about Diane Abbot, but I note you haven't uttered a squeak about Alfred Dreyfus all evening. What about him, hey?
Looks like first polls close in the Atlantic provinces at midnight BST, which is when the coverage below starts. Expecting another Liberal minority, but may be close in seats between Lib & Con - if Lib + NDP <170 then Trudeau will struggle to stay as PM. Counting normally very fast (at polling stations) but slower this year due to Covid and more postal voting etc so may be tomorrow or later in week for results in close ridings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoVkR0IxXV4
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2021/results/
Thanks,
DC
1) It's not just your house, it's everyone else's house as well
2) You ignore the ones who crash and burn and end up selling at a massive loss.
I quite like watching "Grand Designs" now and again, but it makes better tv than a programme called "Almighty Fuck-ups"
Unless the individual in question has undergone a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and gone through a transition then yes they absolutely are men.
To say that a man is a woman, without any transition or medical diagnosis just because he says he is a woman is to deny everything that actually makes a woman a woman.
A trans woman is only a trans woman if she's undergone transition and followed the steps via treatment etc for medically diagnosed dysphoria. Which extremist activists want to skip entirely and allow any man to pretend to be a woman.
Only joking - welcome!
I wont comment specifically on your points only because I feel currently out of my depth on this issue and am doing some reading to try and get a handle on all the ins and outs.
GERB/SDS: Conservative Party (May)
There Is A Nation: Conservative Party (Johnson but without the hostility to the EU)
Coalition for Bulgaria: Labour
Democratic Bulgaria: Conservative Party (Cameron)
Movement for Rights and Freedoms: Liberal Democrats
Stand Up! Mafia, Get Out! No real equivalent - anti-corruption party.
Revival: No real equivalent (Nationalist, Populist want to unite Bulgaria and North Macedonia)
That would be starting an arms race which might well write their (already messy) democracy off.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, RvW was a terrible mistake - it was a clear act of setting policy by judicial activism, against the democratic will of significant chunk of the electorate. The subsequent result is it's so politicised the court that we are in the position today where lots of people vote for terrible presidential candidates purely based on who they can get on the SC.
What should have happened is that abortion should have been left to legislators in the states to sort out, based on their promises to electors. It would mean that the rules varied from state to state (in California, it would probably be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth, whilst in Texas, merely saying the word might get you a month in jail). That would have been democratic, and taken the heat out of the situation.
The best thing that could happen now is that RvW gets struck down by the SC, and the Democrats prove wise enough to leave the situation alone, other than legislating as they see fit in Democrat held states. If they did that, it might actually take some of the heat out of the situation, instead of adding more in.
Two bits of factual news today
1. We are now looking at a shortage of CO2 for important processes including food supply, fertilisers, refrigeration and all manner of industrial processes.
2. Drax are spending 20 million quid on updating their carbon capture systems to capture more of the CO2 from biomass burning and pump it under the North Sea.
So...
Is there some fundamental difference between CO2 (from carbon capture at power stations) and CO2 (used in all manner of industrial and manufacturing processes?
Or
Are our political and business leaders so utterly inept that they can't arrange for some of the CO2 being captured as a biproduct from power stations to be rediverted to the industries where it is in terribly short supply?
My acceptance of gaps in my knowledge tends to make me think the former whilst my natural cynicism about the abilities of our leaders makes me strongly suspect the latter.
Why should control over a woman's own body be democratically decided? As opposed to being a private matter for the woman whose body it is?
The statistics are actually pretty eye opening. There are only states with 72 electoral votes (all deep Red) where there is a clear majority (i.e. 7.5% of greater lead) for abortion being illegal in "all or nearly all circumstances", against 272 where there is a clear majority for the opposite proposition.
Texas's abortion law - which contains no provisions for rape or incest - would almost certainly lose a referendum in the State
In Florida, there's a 17 point gap (57 vs 40) in favour of legal abortion. Yet the Republican legislature are about to force through a copy cat of the Texas law there.
The abolition of Roe vs Wade would be mana from Heaven for the Dems. It would act as an extraordinary recruiting sergeant for the party ahead of the midterms.
Is the CO2 that is a by product considered food grade?
Sort of like the difference between using the meat of a pig that you slaughter and the meat of a pig that you find already dead. The latter to the best of my knowledge wouldn't be food safe.
The entire basis of PC is that words and phrases have accrued connotations, and we all need to be careful that we don't imply things we don't mean through careless use of them.
Simply saying "I have transitioned" and then expecting an immediate violation of safeguarding etc on the basis of that doesn't make it so.
The gaseous emissions that Drax extracts is going to contain a lot more than just CO2. It'll contain various particulate matter, some CO and other stuff. You could not just take it and use it in food preparation.
But separating the CO2 from the rest of the stuff is far from impossible.
HOWEVER, I'm also not sure that we have any dedicated CO2 pipelines in the UK, so getting the gas from the power station to where it needs to be used is another challenge.
Because while over here we have Parliamentary sovereignty and can change anything we please via Parliament ... Over there people have rights that the Congress can't violate.
This being after they have generated said Co2 by greenly cutting down forests in the USA, greenly shiping the wood across the Atlantic on diesel powered ships and greenly burning it to create power, which this is obviously so much better for the environment than burning coal that it should be heavily subsidised.
Have I mentioned before that the whole green agenda is mostly an excuse for the little people to pay more, whilst a special class of person gets to jet round the place and go to important meetings, where they decide stuff like this...
It's interesting how quickly some things get accepted as just 'the way things are' and people genuinely think it has always been that way, or that specific rules and principles were always adhered to.
So the Democrats should continue to fight the arms race while they have the chance.
The GOP haven't and won't give up their chances to do so. Which is why they currently have a 6-3 majority.
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1439993944494936068?s=19
As it relates to trans, 'men in dresses' is a flippant, dismissive way of engaging with the matter at hand, it's not helpful if one accepts the premise of transitioning even if you take issue with at what point someone is regarded as such.
And yet if I am totally honest I do have an issue generally with self identification, of most things really, and the idea that cannot be legitimately challenged. It crosses over with some hurtful and unfair stuff on this issue, with those who do deny that being trans is even a real thing, but though I don't agree with that at all, I do have an issue with the seemingly competing idea that whatever someone says goes and that's an end to it, and if you do then you are exactly the same as the most vicious transphobes out there.
There's a range of opinion on this subject, and it is complex and fraught, and though I think I am a reasonable man others might find my stance on some of it as bigoted, but even then not all bigotry is the same, not all sins are equal. The problem with this debate is, even more than racial discussions, fall on the wrong side and you immediately get lumped in with the very worst examples of that side.
Also, the definition of woman as 'someone who identifies as a woman' is strangely circular. If that is really all it means, why bother identifying as one?
Evolve Politics
@evolvepolitics
Police cars revolving light | NEW: Keir Starmer is considering banning ordinary Labour members from voting in Labour Leadership elections
@LabGND
Police cars revolving light BREAKING NEWS Police cars revolving light
Decision overturned by CAC after an appeal White heavy check mark
Our Green Jobs Revolution motion is going to Labour Conference Rose