So clearly there was a focus group earlier in the week that revealed the issue.
Which is why Boris has created a solution that seems to fix all the issues while not solving a single one of them and should allow the blame to be correctly laid back at the feet of the haulage industry (and the customers that pushed profits to the floor).
I note that these questions don't seem to have the industry as the answer which is a pity as that's 90% of the real issue.
Breaking on topic: Isle of Wight petrol stations close amid panic buying crisis
Don't worry I read on here, post after post from fanbois, last night that filling stations would all be restocked in next to no time. A finite number of vehicles, drivers and driver's hours are not a problem it would seem.
There is plenty of fuel in the depots and anyway you can see Fawley across the Solent from the Isle of Wight, so no worries there! Osmosis should do the trick.
Reports suggest only 200 of the 8,000 stations in the UK ran out of petrol yesterday, despite the biggest run on it in decades.
Might be more now though. I passed one of our local ones at 10.30 and there was brisk custom, but no queues. At 2.30 it was out of fuel. Local Morrison’s still had fuel at that point, and was busy, but no queues. I suspect we will be ok.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That is true, but isn't that part of the point? Some do, some don't, but it is being treated at present as a zero sum game and those who do feel it treated as if pariahs for their position, when the debate should be much more nuanced than 'I don't have a problem with it, X is the situation, end of'.
Breaking on topic: Isle of Wight petrol stations close amid panic buying crisis
Don't worry I read on here, post after post from fanbois, last night that filling stations would all be restocked in next to no time. A finite number of vehicles, drivers and driver's hours are not a problem it would seem.
There is plenty of fuel in the depots and anyway you can see Fawley across the Solent from the Isle of Wight, so no worries there! Osmosis should do the trick.
Reports suggest only 200 of the 8,000 stations in the UK ran out of petrol yesterday, despite the biggest run on it in decades.
Well my 24 year old autistic son didn't panic buy and now needs petrol. I'll tell him 7800 stations have fuel, so not to worry.
I was at Cardiff City Stadium yesterday.
Asda filling station at the stadium was closed, as was Tesco Culverhouse Cross and the Esso station on the A48 at Cowbridge, so had I needed fuel ( I filled up last Sunday before I went to NI for the week) I would have been incredibly unlucky in that all three I passed were closed.
Hope he’s not in London. I think pretty much no petrol anywhere now.
None in Pontypridd where he is, so he is panicking, just not buying.
I’m old enough to remember when it was regarded as a fundamental duty of government to do whatever they could to avoid this kind of thing.
Yes, they should have put a D-notice on the media, to stop them talking up panic buying of petrol as if it were some game.
I seem to recall that during the refinery blockade of 2000, the government made special arrangements to ensure that doctors and ambulances had access to fuel. This government don’t appear to have bothered.
That’s because there was an actual blockade, which evolved over several days.
This time there’s no blockade, simply a media-induced panic.
I’ll take a good guess that there’s plenty of behind the scenes planning, but no, you’re not going to get a running commentary on it.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That is true, but isn't that part of the point? Some do, some don't, but it is being treated at present as a zero sum game and those who do feel it treated as if pariahs for their position, when the debate should be much more nuanced than 'I don't have a problem with it, X is the situation, end of'.
I agree completely that the debate should be nuanced. That applies in both directions though.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
The Bench of Bishops is (probably) morally superior to the Labour Party, but there are good reasons why we don't let them run the country.
Eh? They seemingly have a moral right to, and help to, run the country; blame Henry VIII and HYUFD. (But not Moderators of the Kirk, for some unaccountable reason.)
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That is true, but isn't that part of the point? Some do, some don't, but it is being treated at present as a zero sum game and those who do feel it treated as if pariahs for their position, when the debate should be much more nuanced than 'I don't have a problem with it, X is the situation, end of'.
I agree completely that the debate should be nuanced
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Agree but it seems to be human nature. I'm struggling to understand how 33% manage to blame the last Labour Govt. Much as I can see many might want to, it is an stretch.
That probably just shows a base level Tory tribal vote, picking the most favourable option whether they believe it or not.
Here's a stab at how it could be Labour's fault.
This petrol panic is about the market turmoil from a shortage of HGV drivers.
Labour let the FOM influx of Eastern European in on their watch, knowing what would happen to pay rates of lower paid workers. This meant that in many areas, the normal laws of supply and demand got misaligned from their natural levels, as supply became pretty much infinitely elastic. This held down wage levels, resulting in fewer UK nationals training to become HGV drivers.
There has now been a massive market correction because lots of the cheap labour has vanished over the last year or so - partly Brexit, mainly Covid (it's much less fun being cheap labour in the UK if you can't Easyjet your way home to see family for a weekend at £20 a go every month or two).
Had Labour not let that influx of cheap labor come in the first place, we wouldn't suddenly be in a roller-coaster of a mega correction now, as the market would have operated normally over the last 15 years or so - so wages would have risen gradually, more drivers would have been trained, lorry operators would have put more effort into maximising productivity etc...
I don't think it's just Labour's fault, but it's not unreasonable to assign them a share of the blame.
Wow!
Well I am tempted to blame Aneurin Bevan for the woes of the NHS for the last decade, oh, and Ted Heath for Brexit.
A well-argued POV - and you are reduced to taking the piss because you don't like it's underlying assumptions.
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 9m New - I understand the UNISON delegation will vote in favour of the leadership rule change. Big moment for Team Starmer. Makes tonight’s vote much easier.
Breaking on topic: Isle of Wight petrol stations close amid panic buying crisis
Don't worry I read on here, post after post from fanbois, last night that filling stations would all be restocked in next to no time. A finite number of vehicles, drivers and driver's hours are not a problem it would seem.
There is plenty of fuel in the depots and anyway you can see Fawley across the Solent from the Isle of Wight, so no worries there! Osmosis should do the trick.
Reports suggest only 200 of the 8,000 stations in the UK ran out of petrol yesterday, despite the biggest run on it in decades.
Well my 24 year old autistic son didn't panic buy and now needs petrol. I'll tell him 7800 stations have fuel, so not to worry.
I was at Cardiff City Stadium yesterday.
Asda filling station at the stadium was closed, as was Tesco Culverhouse Cross and the Esso station on the A48 at Cowbridge, so had I needed fuel ( I filled up last Sunday before I went to NI for the week) I would have been incredibly unlucky in that all three I passed were closed.
Hope he’s not in London. I think pretty much no petrol anywhere now.
None in Pontypridd where he is, so he is panicking, just not buying.
I’m old enough to remember when it was regarded as a fundamental duty of government to do whatever they could to avoid this kind of thing.
Yes, they should have put a D-notice on the media, to stop them talking up panic buying of petrol as if it were some game.
I seem to recall that during the refinery blockade of 2000, the government made special arrangements to ensure that doctors and ambulances had access to fuel. This government don’t appear to have bothered.
That’s because there was an actual blockade, which evolved over several days.
This time there’s no blockade, simply a media-induced panic.
I’ll take a good guess that there’s plenty of behind the scenes planning, but no, you’re not going to get a running commentary on it.
You say this but it’s not wholly true is it. I alerted you all on Thursday morning to the developing situation in Kent long before it hit the airwaves. And seemingly Cabinet was briefed about it perhaps a week or more before then.
Delegates just voted to nationalise energy companies
Starmer says no
The party needs to split away from its Corbynistas
Where is todays Kinnock ?
Labour is overrun by extremists - it's beyond saving
Nationalising energy companies isn't extreme! Lots of european countries with public utilities.
It might not be a sensible think to do now in UK with the debt burden we have already but that's a different argument.
I was talking more generally.
The Labour Party is full of weirdos who don't live in the real world. The Lib Dems are the same.
The irony is that Keir Starmer is not a weirdo - he's a person who's had a proper job and worked hard outside of politics.
As indeed has Rayner.
Rayner should be leading the charge in fixing social care. She's more qualified to talk about it than most. Better that than calling Tories scum or whatever she did.
Afternoon everyone. No petrol shortage in NE Northumberland that we could see on a drive out this morning.
On topic, as I read it Ms Raynrer spent sometime today talking about fixing social care. However, some people are obsessing over a few throwaway words about the Prime Minister. And I agree with Sir Keir and Ms Nandy; not the words I would use in public.
Mr. kle4, aye, sickle cell anaemia is an odd disease because it's neither regressive nor dominant, a single copy of the gene gives a mild version (which also confers resistance to malaria, hence prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa).
Slightly odd I can remember the biology lesson but not the TV show, but there we are.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
On (a) I don't think that is correct. In mammals, certainly human mammals, females produce eggs and males produce sperm. That's it.
On (b), this is not correct as far as murder is concerned. For transwomen, the number killed per year is 1. And there have been some years where none have been killed. An average of 188 women are killed every year. According to ONS statistics, transwomen are at less risk of being killed than women.
I do not know what the figure is for transmen. Nor is it clear from the ONS statistics how this is broken down between those who have a gender recognition certificate (and have fully transitioned) and those who do not have such a certificate and merely say they are trans. I also do not have to hand the figures for crimes of violence which are not murder.
It goes without saying that transpeople, whatever their transitioning status, should not be attacked at all for being trans. But accuracy in facts is also important.
(a) Babies can be born with XX, XXY, XYY, or XY chromosomes. All except XX babies tend to be classified as male at birth, but XXY often develop female characteristics. Plainly this is non-binary. Also, even XX or XY people can have ambiguous sex characteristics, including ambiguous genitalia. Some people produce neither eggs nor sperm. The term is "intersex".
(b) There are a lot more cisgender women than trans women, so we cannot use those absolute numbers to claim that cisgender women are in more danger. We need to divide by the number in each group.
I know that you are passionate about this topic. I don't disagree that there should be protection against cisgender men pretending to be trans, even though this receives far too much attention relative to the actual prejudice faced by real trans people. But aspects such as intersex babies and prejudice against trans people are fundamental to the issue. You really do need to understand and acknowledge them if you want to write with any authority on the issue.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That is true, but isn't that part of the point? Some do, some don't, but it is being treated at present as a zero sum game and those who do feel it treated as if pariahs for their position, when the debate should be much more nuanced than 'I don't have a problem with it, X is the situation, end of'.
I agree completely that the debate should be nuanced. That applies in both directions though.
Indeed, but who can decide what the red lines are? Who can most reasonably feel if they have already accepted plenty?
It's hard to see how the rhetoric gets less toxic rather than more.
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Perhaps not the best line for ministers to push.
The best line to push is perhaps "those (selfish twats) who spent an age queueing for fuel they won't need in the next few days might like to ponder on the plight of doctors and nurses - who now can't get to work as a result of that panic buying. People were happy enough to clap for the NHS - but not prepared to give up their full tank to keep it working. Think on that."
Breaking on topic: Isle of Wight petrol stations close amid panic buying crisis
Don't worry I read on here, post after post from fanbois, last night that filling stations would all be restocked in next to no time. A finite number of vehicles, drivers and driver's hours are not a problem it would seem.
There is plenty of fuel in the depots and anyway you can see Fawley across the Solent from the Isle of Wight, so no worries there! Osmosis should do the trick.
Reports suggest only 200 of the 8,000 stations in the UK ran out of petrol yesterday, despite the biggest run on it in decades.
Well my 24 year old autistic son didn't panic buy and now needs petrol. I'll tell him 7800 stations have fuel, so not to worry.
I was at Cardiff City Stadium yesterday.
Asda filling station at the stadium was closed, as was Tesco Culverhouse Cross and the Esso station on the A48 at Cowbridge, so had I needed fuel ( I filled up last Sunday before I went to NI for the week) I would have been incredibly unlucky in that all three I passed were closed.
Hope he’s not in London. I think pretty much no petrol anywhere now.
None in Pontypridd where he is, so he is panicking, just not buying.
I’m old enough to remember when it was regarded as a fundamental duty of government to do whatever they could to avoid this kind of thing.
Yes, they should have put a D-notice on the media, to stop them talking up panic buying of petrol as if it were some game.
I seem to recall that during the refinery blockade of 2000, the government made special arrangements to ensure that doctors and ambulances had access to fuel. This government don’t appear to have bothered.
That’s because there was an actual blockade, which evolved over several days.
This time there’s no blockade, simply a media-induced panic.
I’ll take a good guess that there’s plenty of behind the scenes planning, but no, you’re not going to get a running commentary on it.
You’d certainly hope so, but the mitigations for dealing with the consequences of ending free movement of labour don’t appear to be functioning quite as well as they ideally would.
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Perhaps not the best line for ministers to push.
The best line to push is perhaps "those (selfish twats) who spent an age queueing for fuel they won't need in the next few days might like to ponder on the plight of doctors and nurses - who now can't get to work as a result of that panic buying. People were happy enough to clap for the NHS - but not prepared to give up their full tank to keep it working. Think on that."
I keep seeing this "the public are dense" froth on Facebook from people also sitting in queues for petrol.
At the end of the day people need to get to work and nobody is going to risk not getting to their job just because a nurse may be behind them in queue.
It's virtue signalling of the highest order and it's usually coming from those sitting with a car full of fuel themselves.
Breaking on topic: Isle of Wight petrol stations close amid panic buying crisis
Don't worry I read on here, post after post from fanbois, last night that filling stations would all be restocked in next to no time. A finite number of vehicles, drivers and driver's hours are not a problem it would seem.
There is plenty of fuel in the depots and anyway you can see Fawley across the Solent from the Isle of Wight, so no worries there! Osmosis should do the trick.
Reports suggest only 200 of the 8,000 stations in the UK ran out of petrol yesterday, despite the biggest run on it in decades.
Bit surprised at that because I saw at least 5 in Leicester out of fuel when going to the footy yesterday.
They probably got deliveries overnight though, Shell said earlier in the week that they would bring deliveries forwards and we know that there's no shortage of refinery capacity. What we've got is a panic over nothing.
People know that Brexit has made the country vulnerable; that isn’t nothing.
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
A remarkable drama, in retrospect. House was racist, sexist, chauvinist, misogynistic, condescending, made rude jokes about the poor/disabled/stupid and so on, yet he was also allowed to be sympathetic, even heroic, as well as vulnerable
American TV would never make it now, I doubt British TV would have ever managed
Relatedly, I started watching Vigil last night. Of course the UK nuke deterrent sub is captained by a black man, of course the hero police officer is lesbian. The het white males are, so far, the villains.
I’m waiting for a brilliant tranny to torpedo everything
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
I liked him in Avenue 5, even if it had many of the same flaws of most of Armando Ianucci's work (principally, impossible to relate to most characters).
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Perhaps not the best line for ministers to push.
The best line to push is perhaps "those (selfish twats) who spent an age queueing for fuel they won't need in the next few days might like to ponder on the plight of doctors and nurses - who now can't get to work as a result of that panic buying. People were happy enough to clap for the NHS - but not prepared to give up their full tank to keep it working. Think on that."
And the whole school will be kept in until the culprit owns up.
An even better line is "Telling Lies On The Side Of Buses Has Consequences. Who Knew?"
“The move will allow Octopus to recoup all costs incurred, including buying energy for customers of the failed supplier via an industry levy that ultimately falls on consumer bills.”
So higher energy bills for all, coming down the line in April next year, to pay for subsidised energy over the next six months.
The govt had better hope gas prices come back down, soon, otherwise April 2022 is gonna be bloody miserable.
Does anyone want to offer me odds that the first yougov published in May 2022 shows a lab lead?
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Perhaps not the best line for ministers to push.
The best line to push is perhaps "those (selfish twats) who spent an age queueing for fuel they won't need in the next few days might like to ponder on the plight of doctors and nurses - who now can't get to work as a result of that panic buying. People were happy enough to clap for the NHS - but not prepared to give up their full tank to keep it working. Think on that."
I keep seeing this "the public are dense" froth on Facebook from people also sitting in queues for petrol.
At the end of the day people need to get to work and nobody is going to risk not getting to their job just because a nurse may be behind them in queue.
It's virtue signalling of the highest order and it's usually coming from those sitting with a car full of fuel themselves.
Those of us without cars are feeling even more smug right now.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
Cheers. Yep, agree with this. Hopefully the focus will eventually return to practicalities. There's a wide territory to target between pure self-ID with zero controls and the current heavily medicalised, Kafkaesque process. And rather than sex-based rights staying or going it's about what the default should be. Should women's spaces/activities exclude transwomen unless there's a demonstrable reason for inclusion? Or should they include them unless there's a demonstrable need for exclusion? This is the essence of the debate, what should the gender change process be, what should the default be for single sex spaces, and the controls around both.
Some numbers, for those who care, from The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality, by Stainton Rogers & Stainton Rogers.
Klinefelter's syndrome occurs in roughly 2 per 1,000 male births. It involves an XXY configuration of chromosomes, infertility, decreased libido, more feminine form. Having more X chromosomes is possible but comes with associated risks of reproductive, skeletal, and learning disorder problems.
XYY is associated with greater height and learning disabilities but no stat on frequency.
Turner's syndrome is per 10,000 female births, and is XO (ovaries fail to form and puberty does not occur naturally but can be induced with hormones).
XXX is associated with sterility and learning disabilities, although in rare cases birth is possible. Most such embryos are naturally aborted.
Intersexuality/hermaphroditism is described as extremely rare with 60 cases identified in North America/Europe over a 100 year period (may involved a testicle on one side and ovary on the other).
Delegates just voted to nationalise energy companies
Starmer says no
The party needs to split away from its Corbynistas
Where is todays Kinnock ?
Labour is overrun by extremists - it's beyond saving
Nationalising energy companies isn't extreme! Lots of european countries with public utilities.
It might not be a sensible think to do now in UK with the debt burden we have already but that's a different argument.
I was talking more generally.
The Labour Party is full of weirdos who don't live in the real world. The Lib Dems are the same.
The irony is that Keir Starmer is not a weirdo - he's a person who's had a proper job and worked hard outside of politics.
As indeed has Rayner.
Rayner should be leading the charge in fixing social care. She's more qualified to talk about it than most. Better that than calling Tories scum or whatever she did.
Afternoon everyone. No petrol shortage in NE Northumberland that we could see on a drive out this morning.
On topic, as I read it Ms Raynrer spent sometime today talking about fixing social care. However, some people are obsessing over a few throwaway words about the Prime Minister. And I agree with Sir Keir and Ms Nandy; not the words I would use in public.
Those 'few throwaway words' mean a heck of a lot when they are legitimised by a senior memebr of the party with aspirations to be the PM uses them. They also suggest she either believes them or is keen to stir up hatred among the party faithful. None of those are attractive traits.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
No fightback, fighting internally. Just look at the state of America, a country capable only of fighting itself. Not sure that France or UK are in a stronger place.
Not that I would support a new Cold War anyway. The response to China needs to be economic and diplomatic, not military.
Indeed. The Chinese aren’t trying to control the world with military power or by spreading political dogma. They are engaged in making the world dependent upon them by owning our debt, building our infrastructure, and making our stuff. That our response is to send a single aircraft carrier to the Far East is laughable.
Delegates just voted to nationalise energy companies
Starmer says no
The party needs to split away from its Corbynistas
Where is todays Kinnock ?
Labour is overrun by extremists - it's beyond saving
Nationalising energy companies isn't extreme! Lots of european countries with public utilities.
It might not be a sensible think to do now in UK with the debt burden we have already but that's a different argument.
I was talking more generally.
The Labour Party is full of weirdos who don't live in the real world. The Lib Dems are the same.
The irony is that Keir Starmer is not a weirdo - he's a person who's had a proper job and worked hard outside of politics.
As indeed has Rayner.
Rayner should be leading the charge in fixing social care. She's more qualified to talk about it than most. Better that than calling Tories scum or whatever she did.
Afternoon everyone. No petrol shortage in NE Northumberland that we could see on a drive out this morning.
On topic, as I read it Ms Raynrer spent sometime today talking about fixing social care. However, some people are obsessing over a few throwaway words about the Prime Minister. And I agree with Sir Keir and Ms Nandy; not the words I would use in public.
Those 'few throwaway words' mean a heck of a lot when they are legitimised by a senior memebr of the party with aspirations to be the PM uses them. They also suggest she either believes them or is keen to stir up hatred among the party faithful. None of those are attractive traits.
Yes, those that are willing to let this slide should consider their reaction if Trump had described his political opponents as “scum”. Sorry Labour but very clear that the heir to the crown is utterly unfit for public office. Back to the drawing board please.
Breaking on topic: Isle of Wight petrol stations close amid panic buying crisis
Don't worry I read on here, post after post from fanbois, last night that filling stations would all be restocked in next to no time. A finite number of vehicles, drivers and driver's hours are not a problem it would seem.
There is plenty of fuel in the depots and anyway you can see Fawley across the Solent from the Isle of Wight, so no worries there! Osmosis should do the trick.
Reports suggest only 200 of the 8,000 stations in the UK ran out of petrol yesterday, despite the biggest run on it in decades.
Well my 24 year old autistic son didn't panic buy and now needs petrol. I'll tell him 7800 stations have fuel, so not to worry.
I was at Cardiff City Stadium yesterday.
Asda filling station at the stadium was closed, as was Tesco Culverhouse Cross and the Esso station on the A48 at Cowbridge, so had I needed fuel ( I filled up last Sunday before I went to NI for the week) I would have been incredibly unlucky in that all three I passed were closed.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
No fightback, fighting internally. Just look at the state of America, a country capable only of fighting itself. Not sure that France or UK are in a stronger place.
Not that I would support a new Cold War anyway. The response to China needs to be economic and diplomatic, not military.
Indeed. The Chinese aren’t trying to control the world with military power or by spreading political dogma. They are engaged in making the world dependent upon them by owning our debt, building our infrastructure, and making our stuff. That our response is to send a single aircraft carrier to the Far East is laughable.
They are also committing genocide on the Uighur Muslims, they have reneged on a treaty and annexed Hong Kong, they are expanding and colonising the South China Sea (via fake islands), they openly desire to reconquer Taiwan and they make nuclear threats against powers like Australia, or they threaten them with sanctions until they prohibit all critique of Beijing
‘Diplomatic’ protests ain’t gonna cut it. China is Hitler’s Germany in about 1937
Breaking on topic: Isle of Wight petrol stations close amid panic buying crisis
Don't worry I read on here, post after post from fanbois, last night that filling stations would all be restocked in next to no time. A finite number of vehicles, drivers and driver's hours are not a problem it would seem.
There is plenty of fuel in the depots and anyway you can see Fawley across the Solent from the Isle of Wight, so no worries there! Osmosis should do the trick.
Reports suggest only 200 of the 8,000 stations in the UK ran out of petrol yesterday, despite the biggest run on it in decades.
Well my 24 year old autistic son didn't panic buy and now needs petrol. I'll tell him 7800 stations have fuel, so not to worry.
I was at Cardiff City Stadium yesterday.
Asda filling station at the stadium was closed, as was Tesco Culverhouse Cross and the Esso station on the A48 at Cowbridge, so had I needed fuel ( I filled up last Sunday before I went to NI for the week) I would have been incredibly unlucky in that all three I passed were closed.
Hope he’s not in London. I think pretty much no petrol anywhere now.
None in Pontypridd where he is, so he is panicking, just not buying.
I’m old enough to remember when it was regarded as a fundamental duty of government to do whatever they could to avoid this kind of thing.
Yes, they should have put a D-notice on the media, to stop them talking up panic buying of petrol as if it were some game.
I seem to recall that during the refinery blockade of 2000, the government made special arrangements to ensure that doctors and ambulances had access to fuel. This government don’t appear to have bothered.
If the PB fanbois are representative of the Government's view, there are no shortages, so move along, nothing to see.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
For a moment, I thought you were saying you were bored by trains. I fear there are many on PB who would never forgive you for that
Ha! In a tribute worthy of Sunil I took my daughter on a 10-mile double-decker bus trip yesterday, and caught a stream train on the way back.
My transport obsession is intact and I'm fully intent on passing it onto the next generation.
When I used to visit the NE as a kid my granddad used to take me for a "day out" on the Metro, simply sitting at the front of the train, pretending to be the driver and enjoying the train. We usually ended at the airport where you could watch the planes land and takeoff on the runway. Simpler times.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
That’s a good point. The trans issue does not especially interest me now (except as a satisfied spectator of lefty civil wars) - but I have two daughters. Hmm
One thing that does bug me is Starmer’s insistence (restated again today) that trans people are ‘the most marginalized of communities’ Is there anything to back this up? If there is, does it explain the modern Left’s obsession with trans rights - ie in their pursuit of intersectional privilege, or lack of, are trans people the intersect which meets maximum bigotry and hatred?
I have my doubts there are enough trans people to make the data reliable, but who knows
Trans people are protected under the Equality Act. I have posted above the figures for murder in the U.K. Claims that they are the most marginalised group in Britain need to be treated with some scepticism, unless the evidence is there. That said I can well imagine that being trans and coming out about it cannot be easy and that there will be some prejudice and unkind comments etc which are not caught by statistics. Such behaviour is of course wrong.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That may be so. But that is no reason to remove them. And the proposals which Sturgeon is putting forward and which some of Labour's trans activists want to copy will remove those rights, as has been made clear by those who have analysed the provisions of the GRA, the proposed reforms in Scotland and the Equality Act. So the fact that some may not be bothered by this is irrelevant. Those sex-based rights exist for a reason and there is no good reason that I have seen for removing them or curtailing them.
You also ignore the concerns which some gay people have over this issue. If gender rather than sex becomes the only relevant category, what does that mean for sex-based attraction? Sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I may declare myself a man this afternoon. But a gay man is not thereby going to become physically attracted to me what with me having a body with breasts and a vagina. And it would be absurd for me to accuse him of being transphobic because he says so. And yet precisely this accusation is being levelled at lesbians who say that they do not want to have sex with men with penises, whatever they call themselves.
Should we not be a bit concerned about Public Health England now collecting data on gender only rather than sex (apparently) in relation to AIDS and HIV in gay men? Does this not risk adversely affecting medical treatment and statistics and knowledge? Biological sex matters in medicine. Refusing to collect data about it is both daft and potentially dangerous.
I refused to answer questions about my gender identity and sexuality on the diversity form to join my new employer.
They've still confirmed my appointment. So good so far, but I suspect I'll find a dissenting line hard to navigate at director level.
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Perhaps not the best line for ministers to push.
The best line to push is perhaps "those (selfish twats) who spent an age queueing for fuel they won't need in the next few days might like to ponder on the plight of doctors and nurses - who now can't get to work as a result of that panic buying. People were happy enough to clap for the NHS - but not prepared to give up their full tank to keep it working. Think on that."
I keep seeing this "the public are dense" froth on Facebook from people also sitting in queues for petrol.
At the end of the day people need to get to work and nobody is going to risk not getting to their job just because a nurse may be behind them in queue.
It's virtue signalling of the highest order and it's usually coming from those sitting with a car full of fuel themselves.
"Public are stupid" from Labour (who are not in power) = cue PBTory hysteria.
"Public are stupid" from PBTories defending laissez-faire and neglect in a government in power = right and normal state of affairs.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
Cheers. Yep, agree with this. Hopefully the focus will eventually return to practicalities. There's a wide territory to target between pure self-ID with zero controls and the current heavily medicalised, Kafkaesque process. And rather than sex-based rights staying or going it's about what the default should be. Should women's spaces/activities exclude transwomen unless there's a demonstrable reason for inclusion? Or should they include them unless there's a demonstrable need for exclusion? This is the essence of the debate, what should the gender change process be, what should the default be for single sex spaces, and the controls around both.
Ultimately, gender segregation of spaces is either policed (such as prisons, or sporting events) or un-policed (such as changing rooms) the latter being informally policed by other users.
If a Transwoman is polite and discrete they are likely to not draw a second glance as they slip into a cubicle. What seems to agitate is inappropriate behaviour, and that is where enforcement should lie. The essence of good manners is to make others feel comfortable. If someone is behaving inappropriately to other users, particularly vulnerable ones such as children or victims of violence, then that needs to be dealt with whatever their gender identification.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
No fightback, fighting internally. Just look at the state of America, a country capable only of fighting itself. Not sure that France or UK are in a stronger place.
Not that I would support a new Cold War anyway. The response to China needs to be economic and diplomatic, not military.
Indeed. The Chinese aren’t trying to control the world with military power or by spreading political dogma. They are engaged in making the world dependent upon them by owning our debt, building our infrastructure, and making our stuff. That our response is to send a single aircraft carrier to the Far East is laughable.
They are also committing genocide on the Uighur Muslims, they have reneged on a treaty and annexed Hong Kong, they are expanding and colonising the South China Sea (via fake islands), they openly desire to reconquer Taiwan and they make nuclear threats against powers like Australia, or they threaten them with sanctions until they prohibit all critique of Beijing
‘Diplomatic’ protests ain’t gonna cut it. China is Hitler’s Germany in about 1937
I didn’t say they were nice. I said they were clever. Up against our buffoon of a PM, I doubt they’re feeling worried.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
That’s a good point. The trans issue does not especially interest me now (except as a satisfied spectator of lefty civil wars) - but I have two daughters. Hmm
One thing that does bug me is Starmer’s insistence (restated again today) that trans people are ‘the most marginalized of communities’ Is there anything to back this up? If there is, does it explain the modern Left’s obsession with trans rights - ie in their pursuit of intersectional privilege, or lack of, are trans people the intersect which meets maximum bigotry and hatred?
I have my doubts there are enough trans people to make the data reliable, but who knows
Trans people are protected under the Equality Act. I have posted above the figures for murder in the U.K. Claims that they are the most marginalised group in Britain need to be treated with some scepticism, unless the evidence is there. That said I can well imagine that being trans and coming out about it cannot be easy and that there will be some prejudice and unkind comments etc which are not caught by statistics. Such behaviour is of course wrong.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That may be so. But that is no reason to remove them. And the proposals which Sturgeon is putting forward and which some of Labour's trans activists want to copy will remove those rights, as has been made clear by those who have analysed the provisions of the GRA, the proposed reforms in Scotland and the Equality Act. So the fact that some may not be bothered by this is irrelevant. Those sex-based rights exist for a reason and there is no good reason that I have seen for removing them or curtailing them.
You also ignore the concerns which some gay people have over this issue. If gender rather than sex becomes the only relevant category, what does that mean for sex-based attraction? Sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I may declare myself a man this afternoon. But a gay man is not thereby going to become physically attracted to me what with me having a body with breasts and a vagina. And it would be absurd for me to accuse him of being transphobic because he says so. And yet precisely this accusation is being levelled at lesbians who say that they do not want to have sex with men with penises, whatever they call themselves.
Should we not be a bit concerned about Public Health England now collecting data on gender only rather than sex (apparently) in relation to AIDS and HIV in gay men? Does this not risk adversely affecting medical treatment and statistics and knowledge? Biological sex matters in medicine. Refusing to collect data about it is both daft and potentially dangerous.
I refused to answer questions about my gender identity and sexuality on the diversity form to join my new employer.
They've still confirmed my appointment. So good so far, but I suspect I'll find a dissenting line hard to navigate at director level.
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
A remarkable drama, in retrospect. House was racist, sexist, chauvinist, misogynistic, condescending, made rude jokes about the poor/disabled/stupid and so on, yet he was also allowed to be sympathetic, even heroic, as well as vulnerable
American TV would never make it now, I doubt British TV would have ever managed
Relatedly, I started watching Vigil last night. Of course the UK nuke deterrent sub is captained by a black man, of course the hero police officer is lesbian. The het white males are, so far, the villains.
I’m waiting for a brilliant tranny to torpedo everything
Absolutely no queues at my petrol station. All fuel available and only 2 of 6 pumps being used.
Don’t tell people that! The selfish twunks will set off from around the nation and converge...
Yes there really is no more selfish behaviour than wanting to make sure you have enough fuel to get your kids to school and yourself to work.
Fine if you need fuel. How many yesterday didn’t actually need to fill up?
While that's true, can you blame people for having more range anxiety than normal in the current circumstances? It's all very well being the "sensible one" until everyone else has fuel and you don't.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
For a moment, I thought you were saying you were bored by trains. I fear there are many on PB who would never forgive you for that
Ha! In a tribute worthy of Sunil I took my daughter on a 10-mile double-decker bus trip yesterday, and caught a stream train on the way back.
My transport obsession is intact and I'm fully intent on passing it onto the next generation.
When I used to visit the NE as a kid my granddad used to take me for a "day out" on the Metro, simply sitting at the front of the train, pretending to be the driver and enjoying the train. We usually ended at the airport where you could watch the planes land and takeoff on the runway. Simpler times.
Oh yes, when you could visit an airport and actually watch what was happening. Just visiting.
Last time I did that must have been at Bournemouth about 1998 and even then I was waiting for a plane so I am not sure at this distance in time if the open air viewing area was open to non-pax. In any case it had more caging and barbed wire than I had expected. I felt like Guy the Gorilla in Regents Park. But the fresh air was great and I was rewarded when, quite unexpectedly, a vintage Hunter came along and took off.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
George W Bush (see BBC President's warroom documentary) actually got the day of 9/11 and the mood of the days and immediate weeks thereafter, but then America went wildly out of control (see Netflix war on terror documentary).
They should have knocked out the Taliban in 'Stan, helped stabilise the country and invested all their time and energy in special forces and CIA ops to root out Al-Qaeda worldwide. They never should have opened up Guantanamo, and the Patriot Act was an overreaction, and Iraq should have been just been contained.
Basically, America lost its head and became too hell-bent on revenge. It could have boxed much much cleverer.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
No fightback, fighting internally. Just look at the state of America, a country capable only of fighting itself. Not sure that France or UK are in a stronger place.
Not that I would support a new Cold War anyway. The response to China needs to be economic and diplomatic, not military.
Indeed. The Chinese aren’t trying to control the world with military power or by spreading political dogma. They are engaged in making the world dependent upon them by owning our debt, building our infrastructure, and making our stuff. That our response is to send a single aircraft carrier to the Far East is laughable.
They are also committing genocide on the Uighur Muslims, they have reneged on a treaty and annexed Hong Kong, they are expanding and colonising the South China Sea (via fake islands), they openly desire to reconquer Taiwan and they make nuclear threats against powers like Australia, or they threaten them with sanctions until they prohibit all critique of Beijing
‘Diplomatic’ protests ain’t gonna cut it. China is Hitler’s Germany in about 1937
I didn’t say they were nice. I said they were clever.
Indeed they are, but sending a gunboat won't impress 21st Century China. This isn't the 19th Century.
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
A remarkable drama, in retrospect. House was racist, sexist, chauvinist, misogynistic, condescending, made rude jokes about the poor/disabled/stupid and so on, yet he was also allowed to be sympathetic, even heroic, as well as vulnerable
American TV would never make it now, I doubt British TV would have ever managed
Relatedly, I started watching Vigil last night. Of course the UK nuke deterrent sub is captained by a black man, of course the hero police officer is lesbian. The het white males are, so far, the villains.
I’m waiting for a brilliant tranny to torpedo everything
Too many sub plots for me ...
I think they are getting sonar to a denouement though.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
No fightback, fighting internally. Just look at the state of America, a country capable only of fighting itself. Not sure that France or UK are in a stronger place.
Not that I would support a new Cold War anyway. The response to China needs to be economic and diplomatic, not military.
Indeed. The Chinese aren’t trying to control the world with military power or by spreading political dogma. They are engaged in making the world dependent upon them by owning our debt, building our infrastructure, and making our stuff. That our response is to send a single aircraft carrier to the Far East is laughable.
They are also committing genocide on the Uighur Muslims, they have reneged on a treaty and annexed Hong Kong, they are expanding and colonising the South China Sea (via fake islands), they openly desire to reconquer Taiwan and they make nuclear threats against powers like Australia, or they threaten them with sanctions until they prohibit all critique of Beijing
‘Diplomatic’ protests ain’t gonna cut it. China is Hitler’s Germany in about 1937
I didn’t say they were nice. I said they were clever.
Indeed they are, but sending a gunboat won't impress 21st Century China. This isn't the 19th Century.
Given the history, sending a boat is probably the worst thing to have done.
This is what Rod Liddle was talking about in his Sunday Times column today.
"That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures."
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
No fightback, fighting internally. Just look at the state of America, a country capable only of fighting itself. Not sure that France or UK are in a stronger place.
Not that I would support a new Cold War anyway. The response to China needs to be economic and diplomatic, not military.
Indeed. The Chinese aren’t trying to control the world with military power or by spreading political dogma. They are engaged in making the world dependent upon them by owning our debt, building our infrastructure, and making our stuff. That our response is to send a single aircraft carrier to the Far East is laughable.
They are also committing genocide on the Uighur Muslims, they have reneged on a treaty and annexed Hong Kong, they are expanding and colonising the South China Sea (via fake islands), they openly desire to reconquer Taiwan and they make nuclear threats against powers like Australia, or they threaten them with sanctions until they prohibit all critique of Beijing
‘Diplomatic’ protests ain’t gonna cut it. China is Hitler’s Germany in about 1937
I didn’t say they were nice. I said they were clever.
Indeed they are, but sending a gunboat won't impress 21st Century China. This isn't the 19th Century.
Even then, the Chinese did sometimes win. Vide Second Taku Forts in 1859 [edit - First Taku was 1858].
Absolutely no queues at my petrol station. All fuel available and only 2 of 6 pumps being used.
Don’t tell people that! The selfish twunks will set off from around the nation and converge...
Yes there really is no more selfish behaviour than wanting to make sure you have enough fuel to get your kids to school and yourself to work.
Fine if you need fuel. How many yesterday didn’t actually need to fill up?
Why is it so hard to believe people queuing to buy fuel need fuel? My local station hasn’t had fuel since Wed and there’s no public transport and little in the way of walkable amenities for many.
Life’s a more pleasant experience when you stop instinctively leaning towards bitterness and condescension every time you look upon your fellow Man.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American Psycho coming out in 2000 does feel like an inflection point. In 2001 the Twin Towers came down, then America literally went psycho, the Forever Wars began, and now China is near-hegemonic and we are only just beginning the fightback by the west
George W Bush (see BBC President's warroom documentary) actually got the day of 9/11 and the mood of the days and immediate weeks thereafter, but then America went wildly out of control (see Netflix war on terror documentary).
They should have knocked out the Taliban in 'Stan, helped stabilise the country and invested all their time and energy in special forces and CIA ops to root out Al-Qaeda worldwide. They never should have opened up Guantanamo, and the Patriot Act was an overreaction, and Iraq should have been just been contained.
Basically, America lost its head and became too hell-bent on revenge. It could have boxed much much cleverer.
Saddam was a very nasty piece of work indeed, but wrecking his country to destroy him was several bridges too far.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
Eh? I actually agree with you on all of that. It's the relentless way the issue keeps being prosecuted by the identity obsessed Left that bores me.
I don't know why you keep trying to introduce a battle of the sexes dimension into this where it doesn't exist; we've got enough group polarisation as it is.
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
A remarkable drama, in retrospect. House was racist, sexist, chauvinist, misogynistic, condescending, made rude jokes about the poor/disabled/stupid and so on, yet he was also allowed to be sympathetic, even heroic, as well as vulnerable
American TV would never make it now, I doubt British TV would have ever managed
Relatedly, I started watching Vigil last night. Of course the UK nuke deterrent sub is captained by a black man, of course the hero police officer is lesbian. The het white males are, so far, the villains.
I’m waiting for a brilliant tranny to torpedo everything
On Vigil, I suspect 30 years ago there was someone wherever people used to chat before the web (pubs?) going on about how woke it was to have a TV detective series with Helen Mirren in the lead.
The captain: the actor is black, he seems to act the role well. It's not obviously even written as a black role (he's not banging on about overcoming the oppressors and the ratings are not making monkey noises in the background). The police officer: it seems to be a big part of the story, gets a fair bit of time. Whether it's particularly relevant overall or a side story with no great purpose, we'll see (just as valid a comment if the relationship of interest was with a man - could be relevant, could be filler).
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
On (a) I don't think that is correct. In mammals, certainly human mammals, females produce eggs and males produce sperm. That's it.
On (b), this is not correct as far as murder is concerned. For transwomen, the number killed per year is 1. And there have been some years where none have been killed. An average of 188 women are killed every year. According to ONS statistics, transwomen are at less risk of being killed than women.
I do not know what the figure is for transmen. Nor is it clear from the ONS statistics how this is broken down between those who have a gender recognition certificate (and have fully transitioned) and those who do not have such a certificate and merely say they are trans. I also do not have to hand the figures for crimes of violence which are not murder.
It goes without saying that transpeople, whatever their transitioning status, should not be attacked at all for being trans. But accuracy in facts is also important.
(a) Babies can be born with XX, XXY, XYY, or XY chromosomes. All except XX babies tend to be classified as male at birth, but XXY often develop female characteristics. Plainly this is non-binary. Also, even XX or XY people can have ambiguous sex characteristics, including ambiguous genitalia. Some people produce neither eggs nor sperm. The term is "intersex".
(b) There are a lot more cisgender women than trans women, so we cannot use those absolute numbers to claim that cisgender women are in more danger. We need to divide by the number in each group.
I know that you are passionate about this topic. I don't disagree that there should be protection against cisgender men pretending to be trans, even though this receives far too much attention relative to the actual prejudice faced by real trans people. But aspects such as intersex babies and prejudice against trans people are fundamental to the issue. You really do need to understand and acknowledge them if you want to write with any authority on the issue.
The figures I looked at were from ONS statistics and had been adjusted to take account of the different sized groups. Mine were referring to murder only not other crimes of violence.
The fact that there are some intersex people is irrelevant because trans people are not intersex people and are not, as I understand it, saying that they are. Trans activists are not seeking to define themselves as some third category, they are seeking to define themselves as one of the two sexes.
I have always and repeatedly stated that prejudice against and attacks on people for having gender dysphoria are wrong. I do note that the same courtesy is not extended the other way. When women are attacked for wishing to uphold women's rights, they are accused of phobias or told that they deserve it etc. Some are told that they should be murdered. Is this any less unacceptable? The reason this is once again a topic in politics is because a woman MP cannot go to her party's conference because of threats of violence against her.
Transpeople need medical resources and help. These remain woefully poor. The delay to get to be seen by a clinic is 2 years upwards. To put this into context, this is about the same as that which young men suffering from OCD have to wait to see a specialist clinic at The Maudsley Hospital. According to some studies (though research in this area needs more work) the risk of suicide amongst this group is 10 times what it is in the general population.
My concern is about possible policy changes which will limite or remove women's rights ie the rights to the single sex exemptions under the Equality Act. These are needed now as much as they have ever been. And yet - bizarrely - rather than campaigning for the medical help trans people need, activists seem more concerned with removing the right of rape victims to ask for a woman counsellor or or for refuges for female victims of domestic violence to keep men out or for women to have other single sex spaces, even though the law allows this.
Why is the Labour Party so determined to undermine the Equality Act, an Act they brought into force, when it comes to the rights of women?
By the way, I am a woman. Do not ever call me "cis".
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Perhaps not the best line for ministers to push.
The best line to push is perhaps "those (selfish twats) who spent an age queueing for fuel they won't need in the next few days might like to ponder on the plight of doctors and nurses - who now can't get to work as a result of that panic buying. People were happy enough to clap for the NHS - but not prepared to give up their full tank to keep it working. Think on that."
I keep seeing this "the public are dense" froth on Facebook from people also sitting in queues for petrol.
At the end of the day people need to get to work and nobody is going to risk not getting to their job just because a nurse may be behind them in queue.
It's virtue signalling of the highest order and it's usually coming from those sitting with a car full of fuel themselves.
Those of us without cars are feeling even more smug right now.
Just wait till you want a turkey and some toys for your kids at Christmas…
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
Eh? I actually agree with you on all of that. It's the relentless way the issue keeps being prosecuted by the identity obsessed Left that bores me.
I don't know why you keep trying to introduce a battle of the sexes dimension into this where it doesn't exist; we've got enough group polarisation as it is.
Mr R, we've disagreed on occasion, but I'm absolutely certain we're on the same side here. I also think we're on the same side as Ms C. Everyone has the right to feel safe when going about their lives.
Miss Cyclefree, reminds me of a House episode in which a black patient wants the 'white people' drugs rather than the medication specifically designed for those with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (I think it was an anaemia situation, but can't be sure).
Sickle Cell anaemia I believe. Dr Foreman, who was black, proscribed the drug, and the patient came back to House who said he'd do the same thing, then pretended to relent and give the guy the 'white' drug. Foreman gave House shit about it, who callled it a white lie. I remember as I think Foreman's comeback was 'Good one, massa'.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
A remarkable drama, in retrospect. House was racist, sexist, chauvinist, misogynistic, condescending, made rude jokes about the poor/disabled/stupid and so on, yet he was also allowed to be sympathetic, even heroic, as well as vulnerable
American TV would never make it now, I doubt British TV would have ever managed
Relatedly, I started watching Vigil last night. Of course the UK nuke deterrent sub is captained by a black man, of course the hero police officer is lesbian. The het white males are, so far, the villains.
I’m waiting for a brilliant tranny to torpedo everything
The best drama I've just seen (in a long time) is the Korean Squid Game on Netflix.
Bugger me it's intense. Disturbing, depraved, dystopian, dark, but irresistible television. It's not just the scriptwriting, directing or acting that makes it either - all of which is superb - it's the set designs, atmosphere, mood music and soundtrack too. The moral conflicts. The humanity. Everything.
Some numbers, for those who care, from The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality, by Stainton Rogers & Stainton Rogers.
Klinefelter's syndrome occurs in roughly 2 per 1,000 male births. It involves an XXY configuration of chromosomes, infertility, decreased libido, more feminine form. Having more X chromosomes is possible but comes with associated risks of reproductive, skeletal, and learning disorder problems.
XYY is associated with greater height and learning disabilities but no stat on frequency.
Turner's syndrome is per 10,000 female births, and is XO (ovaries fail to form and puberty does not occur naturally but can be induced with hormones).
XXX is associated with sterility and learning disabilities, although in rare cases birth is possible. Most such embryos are naturally aborted.
Intersexuality/hermaphroditism is described as extremely rare with 60 cases identified in North America/Europe over a 100 year period (may involved a testicle on one side and ovary on the other).
There's a few more beyond these.
There’s a particularly unusual case in a BMJ (I think) paper of a woman who, after giving birth to her third child, was discovered to have XY chromosomes.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
Eh? I actually agree with you on all of that. It's the relentless way the issue keeps being prosecuted by the identity obsessed Left that bores me.
I don't know why you keep trying to introduce a battle of the sexes dimension into this where it doesn't exist; we've got enough group polarisation as it is.
I fear that continually tilting at windmills is going to land you in a very sorry place when you are older.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
This is inferring easier transition will likely lead to deviant men gaming the system, something not supported by evidence from countries that have such a system. The other problem is it erroneously links 'trans' with 'perverts', which leads to prejudice and bigotry.
I actually find your philosophical ‘TERF’ arguments stronger. That self-ID represents a trivializing of womanhood. The obvious retort is what about female to male trans, but I guess you’d say, well, yes, but men are secure in their status/power in our (still) patriarchal society, so feel no need to kick up a fuss, which is a good point. My other retort would be that women are more supportive of transpeople than men are, most see no conflict with their own rights, and this is particularly true of younger women, where it’s overwhelming, but to this I guess you’d say, well, yes, because it’s older generation women who remember the fierce fights for equality, hence are more sensitive to encroachments, also a good point.
And is this men telling women what to think? I see why you say this but, no, I don’t think that’s fair. There are loads of men on the anti side of the debate and loads of women on the pro. I don’t see it as a male v female issue at all, to me it’s about allowing this small group of people to be themselves. Changing gender seems odd but I can imagine that one day it’ll be as “shrug” as homosexuality (almost) is today, in which case these battles will be looked back upon in a similar light to those around that. But who knows. The antis are strong at the moment, their arguments resonate, and I haven’t a clue where it’s going longer term.
So we are not allowed to.talk about Rayner and her appalling comment. .. but its all right though for Boris to.be slagged off then.. strikes me as odd...
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
That’s a good point. The trans issue does not especially interest me now (except as a satisfied spectator of lefty civil wars) - but I have two daughters. Hmm
One thing that does bug me is Starmer’s insistence (restated again today) that trans people are ‘the most marginalized of communities’ Is there anything to back this up? If there is, does it explain the modern Left’s obsession with trans rights - ie in their pursuit of intersectional privilege, or lack of, are trans people the intersect which meets maximum bigotry and hatred?
I have my doubts there are enough trans people to make the data reliable, but who knows
Trans people are protected under the Equality Act. I have posted above the figures for murder in the U.K. Claims that they are the most marginalised group in Britain need to be treated with some scepticism, unless the evidence is there. That said I can well imagine that being trans and coming out about it cannot be easy and that there will be some prejudice and unkind comments etc which are not caught by statistics. Such behaviour is of course wrong.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That may be so. But that is no reason to remove them. And the proposals which Sturgeon is putting forward and which some of Labour's trans activists want to copy will remove those rights, as has been made clear by those who have analysed the provisions of the GRA, the proposed reforms in Scotland and the Equality Act. So the fact that some may not be bothered by this is irrelevant. Those sex-based rights exist for a reason and there is no good reason that I have seen for removing them or curtailing them.
You also ignore the concerns which some gay people have over this issue. If gender rather than sex becomes the only relevant category, what does that mean for sex-based attraction? Sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I may declare myself a man this afternoon. But a gay man is not thereby going to become physically attracted to me what with me having a body with breasts and a vagina. And it would be absurd for me to accuse him of being transphobic because he says so. And yet precisely this accusation is being levelled at lesbians who say that they do not want to have sex with men with penises, whatever they call themselves.
Should we not be a bit concerned about Public Health England now collecting data on gender only rather than sex (apparently) in relation to AIDS and HIV in gay men? Does this not risk adversely affecting medical treatment and statistics and knowledge? Biological sex matters in medicine. Refusing to collect data about it is both daft and potentially dangerous.
I refused to answer questions about my gender identity and sexuality on the diversity form to join my new employer.
They've still confirmed my appointment. So good so far, but I suspect I'll find a dissenting line hard to navigate at director level.
I wouldn't worry about it. The best thing to do is simply ignore the bullshit. That's what I do. I've also actively pushed back on something called "alignment groups" without any repercussions. The idea was that all the Asians or Jews or women could align themselves and ask for special treatment. It's something that's come over from our US office and I refused to implement them for my team by saying they'd be divisive. I argued my case to the directors and they agreed so junked them for London.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
That’s a good point. The trans issue does not especially interest me now (except as a satisfied spectator of lefty civil wars) - but I have two daughters. Hmm
One thing that does bug me is Starmer’s insistence (restated again today) that trans people are ‘the most marginalized of communities’ Is there anything to back this up? If there is, does it explain the modern Left’s obsession with trans rights - ie in their pursuit of intersectional privilege, or lack of, are trans people the intersect which meets maximum bigotry and hatred?
I have my doubts there are enough trans people to make the data reliable, but who knows
Trans people are protected under the Equality Act. I have posted above the figures for murder in the U.K. Claims that they are the most marginalised group in Britain need to be treated with some scepticism, unless the evidence is there. That said I can well imagine that being trans and coming out about it cannot be easy and that there will be some prejudice and unkind comments etc which are not caught by statistics. Such behaviour is of course wrong.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That may be so. But that is no reason to remove them. And the proposals which Sturgeon is putting forward and which some of Labour's trans activists want to copy will remove those rights, as has been made clear by those who have analysed the provisions of the GRA, the proposed reforms in Scotland and the Equality Act. So the fact that some may not be bothered by this is irrelevant. Those sex-based rights exist for a reason and there is no good reason that I have seen for removing them or curtailing them.
You also ignore the concerns which some gay people have over this issue. If gender rather than sex becomes the only relevant category, what does that mean for sex-based attraction? Sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I may declare myself a man this afternoon. But a gay man is not thereby going to become physically attracted to me what with me having a body with breasts and a vagina. And it would be absurd for me to accuse him of being transphobic because he says so. And yet precisely this accusation is being levelled at lesbians who say that they do not want to have sex with men with penises, whatever they call themselves.
Should we not be a bit concerned about Public Health England now collecting data on gender only rather than sex (apparently) in relation to AIDS and HIV in gay men? Does this not risk adversely affecting medical treatment and statistics and knowledge? Biological sex matters in medicine. Refusing to collect data about it is both daft and potentially dangerous.
I refused to answer questions about my gender identity and sexuality on the diversity form to join my new employer.
They've still confirmed my appointment. So good so far, but I suspect I'll find a dissenting line hard to navigate at director level.
I wouldn't worry about it. The best thing to do is simply ignore the bullshit. That's what I do. I've also actively pushed back on something called "alignment groups" without any repercussions. The idea was that all the Asians or Jews or women could align themselves and ask for special treatment. It's something that's come over from our US office and I refused to implement them for my team by saying they'd be divisive. I argued my case to the directors and they agreed so junked them for London.
This must be a London thing as my NE law firm does none of this stuff.
So we are not allowed to.talk about Rayner and her appalling comment. .. but its all right though for Boris to.be slagged off then.. strikes me as odd...
Just read the unmentionable’s wiki page. Hadn’t realised she was a granny!
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
Eh? I actually agree with you on all of that. It's the relentless way the issue keeps being prosecuted by the identity obsessed Left that bores me.
I don't know why you keep trying to introduce a battle of the sexes dimension into this where it doesn't exist; we've got enough group polarisation as it is.
I agree with you. Sorry if I did not make myself clear. It should not be a battle of the sexes issue but it does appear to me that a lot of the trans activists attacks on women are coming from men, though not exclusively so. It is curious that the women-transitioning-to-men side is nowhere near as toxic. The Keira Bell case was more about what was being done to her and there was very little of the same women telling men what a man is or seeking to redefine manhood that goes on in relation to transwomen.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
That’s a good point. The trans issue does not especially interest me now (except as a satisfied spectator of lefty civil wars) - but I have two daughters. Hmm
One thing that does bug me is Starmer’s insistence (restated again today) that trans people are ‘the most marginalized of communities’ Is there anything to back this up? If there is, does it explain the modern Left’s obsession with trans rights - ie in their pursuit of intersectional privilege, or lack of, are trans people the intersect which meets maximum bigotry and hatred?
I have my doubts there are enough trans people to make the data reliable, but who knows
Trans people are protected under the Equality Act. I have posted above the figures for murder in the U.K. Claims that they are the most marginalised group in Britain need to be treated with some scepticism, unless the evidence is there. That said I can well imagine that being trans and coming out about it cannot be easy and that there will be some prejudice and unkind comments etc which are not caught by statistics. Such behaviour is of course wrong.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That may be so. But that is no reason to remove them. And the proposals which Sturgeon is putting forward and which some of Labour's trans activists want to copy will remove those rights, as has been made clear by those who have analysed the provisions of the GRA, the proposed reforms in Scotland and the Equality Act. So the fact that some may not be bothered by this is irrelevant. Those sex-based rights exist for a reason and there is no good reason that I have seen for removing them or curtailing them.
You also ignore the concerns which some gay people have over this issue. If gender rather than sex becomes the only relevant category, what does that mean for sex-based attraction? Sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I may declare myself a man this afternoon. But a gay man is not thereby going to become physically attracted to me what with me having a body with breasts and a vagina. And it would be absurd for me to accuse him of being transphobic because he says so. And yet precisely this accusation is being levelled at lesbians who say that they do not want to have sex with men with penises, whatever they call themselves.
Should we not be a bit concerned about Public Health England now collecting data on gender only rather than sex (apparently) in relation to AIDS and HIV in gay men? Does this not risk adversely affecting medical treatment and statistics and knowledge? Biological sex matters in medicine. Refusing to collect data about it is both daft and potentially dangerous.
I refused to answer questions about my gender identity and sexuality on the diversity form to join my new employer.
They've still confirmed my appointment. So good so far, but I suspect I'll find a dissenting line hard to navigate at director level.
I wouldn't worry about it. The best thing to do is simply ignore the bullshit. That's what I do. I've also actively pushed back on something called "alignment groups" without any repercussions. The idea was that all the Asians or Jews or women could align themselves and ask for special treatment. It's something that's come over from our US office and I refused to implement them for my team by saying they'd be divisive. I argued my case to the directors and they agreed so junked them for London.
This must be a London thing as my NE law firm does none of this stuff.
Yes, it's definitely a London thing. International companies are bringing this bullshit in from their US offices which have implemented all this stuff over lockdown while people couldn't object.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
Eh? I actually agree with you on all of that. It's the relentless way the issue keeps being prosecuted by the identity obsessed Left that bores me.
I don't know why you keep trying to introduce a battle of the sexes dimension into this where it doesn't exist; we've got enough group polarisation as it is.
I agree with you. Sorry if I did not make myself clear. It should not be a battle of the sexes issue but it does appear to me that a lot of the trans activists attacks on women are coming from men, though not exclusively so. It is curious that the women-transitioning-to-men side is nowhere near as toxic. The Keira Bell case was more about what was being done to her and there was very little of the same women telling men what a man is or seeking to redefine manhood that goes on in relation to transwomen.
I think the best way to look at this is another expression of white male privilege over women. The main purveyors of self-ID transgenderism are white men. For their whole lives they've got their way and now they've suddenly found that everyone's fighting back against them having free access to women only spaces. That's why this is still getting any airtime. The idea saying women have cocks is ridiculous and yet here we are. The white men will always get their way, Cyclefree.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
This is inferring easier transition will likely lead to deviant men gaming the system, something not supported by evidence from countries that have such a system. The other problem is it erroneously links 'trans' with 'perverts', which leads to prejudice and bigotry.
I actually find your philosophical ‘TERF’ arguments stronger. That self-ID represents a trivializing of womanhood. The obvious retort is what about female to male trans, but I guess you’d say, well, yes, but men are secure in their status/power in our (still) patriarchal society, so feel no need to kick up a fuss, which is a good point. My other retort would be that women are more supportive of transpeople than men are, most see no conflict with their own rights, and this is particularly true of younger women, where it’s overwhelming, but to this I guess you’d say, well, yes, because it’s older generation women who remember the fierce fights for equality, hence are more sensitive to encroachments, also a good point.
And is this men telling women what to think? I see why you say this but, no, I don’t think that’s fair. There are loads of men on the anti side of the debate and loads of women on the pro. I don’t see it as a male v female issue at all, to me it’s about allowing this small group of people to be themselves. Changing gender seems odd but I can imagine that one day it’ll be as “shrug” as homosexuality (almost) is today, in which case these battles will be looked back upon in a similar light to those around that. But who knows. The antis are strong at the moment, their arguments resonate, and I haven’t a clue where it’s going longer term.
Please do not call me a TERF.
I have to go now. But I did respond to your questions to me on the thread header I wrote the other day. Right at the end. Not going to repeat here. Just wanted to let you know that I did not ignore your questions.
Your first paragraph is very naive, btw. If anything the evidence - such as it is (too early to say) goes the other way.
Nor do I think this a generational issue. Daughter does not care if people want to transition but very firmly against transwomen competing in women's sports.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
That’s a good point. The trans issue does not especially interest me now (except as a satisfied spectator of lefty civil wars) - but I have two daughters. Hmm
One thing that does bug me is Starmer’s insistence (restated again today) that trans people are ‘the most marginalized of communities’ Is there anything to back this up? If there is, does it explain the modern Left’s obsession with trans rights - ie in their pursuit of intersectional privilege, or lack of, are trans people the intersect which meets maximum bigotry and hatred?
I have my doubts there are enough trans people to make the data reliable, but who knows
Trans people are protected under the Equality Act. I have posted above the figures for murder in the U.K. Claims that they are the most marginalised group in Britain need to be treated with some scepticism, unless the evidence is there. That said I can well imagine that being trans and coming out about it cannot be easy and that there will be some prejudice and unkind comments etc which are not caught by statistics. Such behaviour is of course wrong.
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
Of course you are. But it is not your sex-based rights which are at risk. Nor how you describe yourself and are described.
You might become slightly less bored by the topic when a teacher turns up at the school your daughter goes to and it turns out that they are a man who has legally become a woman in Scotland (if Sturgeon's GRA changes go through) after three months without any medical diagnosis of dysphoria and without having transitioned in any way and that such a teacher can access the loos and changing rooms your daughter uses.
I respect your position @Cyclefree but you have to also recognise that plenty of women do not feel their sex-based rights are under threat in the same way you do.
That may be so. But that is no reason to remove them. And the proposals which Sturgeon is putting forward and which some of Labour's trans activists want to copy will remove those rights, as has been made clear by those who have analysed the provisions of the GRA, the proposed reforms in Scotland and the Equality Act. So the fact that some may not be bothered by this is irrelevant. Those sex-based rights exist for a reason and there is no good reason that I have seen for removing them or curtailing them.
You also ignore the concerns which some gay people have over this issue. If gender rather than sex becomes the only relevant category, what does that mean for sex-based attraction? Sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I may declare myself a man this afternoon. But a gay man is not thereby going to become physically attracted to me what with me having a body with breasts and a vagina. And it would be absurd for me to accuse him of being transphobic because he says so. And yet precisely this accusation is being levelled at lesbians who say that they do not want to have sex with men with penises, whatever they call themselves.
Should we not be a bit concerned about Public Health England now collecting data on gender only rather than sex (apparently) in relation to AIDS and HIV in gay men? Does this not risk adversely affecting medical treatment and statistics and knowledge? Biological sex matters in medicine. Refusing to collect data about it is both daft and potentially dangerous.
I refused to answer questions about my gender identity and sexuality on the diversity form to join my new employer.
They've still confirmed my appointment. So good so far, but I suspect I'll find a dissenting line hard to navigate at director level.
I wouldn't worry about it. The best thing to do is simply ignore the bullshit. That's what I do. I've also actively pushed back on something called "alignment groups" without any repercussions. The idea was that all the Asians or Jews or women could align themselves and ask for special treatment. It's something that's come over from our US office and I refused to implement them for my team by saying they'd be divisive. I argued my case to the directors and they agreed so junked them for London.
This must be a London thing as my NE law firm does none of this stuff.
I think it is a routine equal opportunities piece of record keeping, but people are always free to not comply and it is independent of the employment process. I used to head a department of 250 staff, who had all filled in the forms, but I had no interest or ability in seeing what any individual had put down.
It is necessary for big employers to document these things though, in order to meet the obligations of the Equality Act and other legislation.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
Cheers. Yep, agree with this. Hopefully the focus will eventually return to practicalities. There's a wide territory to target between pure self-ID with zero controls and the current heavily medicalised, Kafkaesque process. And rather than sex-based rights staying or going it's about what the default should be. Should women's spaces/activities exclude transwomen unless there's a demonstrable reason for inclusion? Or should they include them unless there's a demonstrable need for exclusion? This is the essence of the debate, what should the gender change process be, what should the default be for single sex spaces, and the controls around both.
Ultimately, gender segregation of spaces is either policed (such as prisons, or sporting events) or un-policed (such as changing rooms) the latter being informally policed by other users.
If a Transwoman is polite and discrete they are likely to not draw a second glance as they slip into a cubicle. What seems to agitate is inappropriate behaviour, and that is where enforcement should lie. The essence of good manners is to make others feel comfortable. If someone is behaving inappropriately to other users, particularly vulnerable ones such as children or victims of violence, then that needs to be dealt with whatever their gender identification.
Yes, we have a range of laws and policing mechanisms, informal and formal, that taken together we rely upon to regulate behaviour and mitigate the risk of sexual harassment and crime by (let's face it) men. If aspects of this need to be refined or strengthened they should be, regardless of where we go on the (separate) transgender debate.
So. Half an hour to German exit poll. What does everyone think?
That clip of the CDU guy laughing during his visit to the Rhineland flood-devastated town will put him in second place. What happens thereafter is up to the SPD. They will have to choose between getting the FPD or Linke on board (assuming they already have an offer ready to pitch to the Greens). They’d be best advised to woo the FDP; Linke’s peculiar mix of unreconstructed communists in the east and young radical Corbynites in the west doesn’t suggest a basis for a stable coalition.
And someone decided to write a newspaper article about this phenomenon? One thing wrong about this country: its cultural cringe towards posh twits in fee-paying schools. Nauseating stuff. I'm with George Bernard Shaw: burn down the lot and sow salt in the ashes.
Hate to break it to you, but twits no longer get into the fee-paying schools you've heard of, nor into the Ivy League.
Are you also with Shaw in insisting Hitler and Mussolini should be judged by results, in thinking that freedom was a worthless political value, and in wanting to sterilise or exxterminate the socially unfit?
Relatedly, I watched American Psycho for the first time last night. Brilliant. How long ago all that seems now, and what an aching irony that when he leaves the restaurant after breaking up with his fiancee there's a gorgeous shot of the twin towers. The film came out in 2000.
I suppose you think you've made some sort of killer point in all that, but I'm struggling to identify what it could be.
American psycho is irrelevant. But I'm thinking that someone who wants people killed in the gas chambers for having Down's syndrome would not be my go-to guy on other social issues, either. You must make your own mind up, though. I'm sure there is much to be said on both sides of the argument.
Christian Bale's performance in the film was remarkable. It was difficult to believe he was British when watching it.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
On (a) I don't think that is correct. In mammals, certainly human mammals, females produce eggs and males produce sperm. That's it.
On (b), this is not correct as far as murder is concerned. For transwomen, the number killed per year is 1. And there have been some years where none have been killed. An average of 188 women are killed every year. According to ONS statistics, transwomen are at less risk of being killed than women.
I do not know what the figure is for transmen. Nor is it clear from the ONS statistics how this is broken down between those who have a gender recognition certificate (and have fully transitioned) and those who do not have such a certificate and merely say they are trans. I also do not have to hand the figures for crimes of violence which are not murder.
It goes without saying that transpeople, whatever their transitioning status, should not be attacked at all for being trans. But accuracy in facts is also important.
(a) Babies can be born with XX, XXY, XYY, or XY chromosomes. All except XX babies tend to be classified as male at birth, but XXY often develop female characteristics. Plainly this is non-binary. Also, even XX or XY people can have ambiguous sex characteristics, including ambiguous genitalia. Some people produce neither eggs nor sperm. The term is "intersex".
(b) There are a lot more cisgender women than trans women, so we cannot use those absolute numbers to claim that cisgender women are in more danger. We need to divide by the number in each group.
I know that you are passionate about this topic. I don't disagree that there should be protection against cisgender men pretending to be trans, even though this receives far too much attention relative to the actual prejudice faced by real trans people. But aspects such as intersex babies and prejudice against trans people are fundamental to the issue. You really do need to understand and acknowledge them if you want to write with any authority on the issue.
The figures I looked at were from ONS statistics and had been adjusted to take account of the different sized groups. Mine were referring to murder only not other crimes of violence.
The fact that there are some intersex people is irrelevant because trans people are not intersex people and are not, as I understand it, saying that they are. Trans activists are not seeking to define themselves as some third category, they are seeking to define themselves as one of the two sexes.
I have always and repeatedly stated that prejudice against and attacks on people for having gender dysphoria are wrong. I do note that the same courtesy is not extended the other way. When women are attacked for wishing to uphold women's rights, they are accused of phobias or told that they deserve it etc. Some are told that they should be murdered. Is this any less unacceptable? The reason this is once again a topic in politics is because a woman MP cannot go to her party's conference because of threats of violence against her.
Transpeople need medical resources and help. These remain woefully poor. The delay to get to be seen by a clinic is 2 years upwards. To put this into context, this is about the same as that which young men suffering from OCD have to wait to see a specialist clinic at The Maudsley Hospital. According to some studies (though research in this area needs more work) the risk of suicide amongst this group is 10 times what it is in the general population.
My concern is about possible policy changes which will limite or remove women's rights ie the rights to the single sex exemptions under the Equality Act. These are needed now as much as they have ever been. And yet - bizarrely - rather than campaigning for the medical help trans people need, activists seem more concerned with removing the right of rape victims to ask for a woman counsellor or or for refuges for female victims of domestic violence to keep men out or for women to have other single sex spaces, even though the law allows this.
Why is the Labour Party so determined to undermine the Equality Act, an Act they brought into force, when it comes to the rights of women?
By the way, I am a woman. Do not ever call me "cis".
The Labour party is no longer a national party but rather a coalition of increasingly conflicting factions. It has truly lost its way. The LDs should be pushing to fill the gap but have their own factions to contend with. Ironically both are in a mess now over the trans issue which could not be further from the generality of public opinion if it tried.
Comments
This time there’s no blockade, simply a media-induced panic.
I’ll take a good guess that there’s plenty of behind the scenes planning, but no, you’re not going to get a running commentary on it.
Something that isn't technically full nationalisation but does involve common ownership of some kind.
Of course, Dr House was pretty racist in fairness.
@jessicaelgot
·
9m
New - I understand the UNISON delegation will vote in favour of the leadership rule change. Big moment for Team Starmer. Makes tonight’s vote much easier.
On topic, as I read it Ms Raynrer spent sometime today talking about fixing social care. However, some people are obsessing over a few throwaway words about the Prime Minister.
And I agree with Sir Keir and Ms Nandy; not the words I would use in public.
Slightly odd I can remember the biology lesson but not the TV show, but there we are.
(b) There are a lot more cisgender women than trans women, so we cannot use those absolute numbers to claim that cisgender women are in more danger. We need to divide by the number in each group.
Here are the rates recorded by the ONS: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/trans-people-twice-as-likely-to-be-victims-of-in-england-and-wales . Trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime as cisgender people. I suspect it's more than twice as likely if we focus on cisgender women, due to the difference between cisgender men and cisgender women (which is conveniently ignored in this article).
I know that you are passionate about this topic. I don't disagree that there should be protection against cisgender men pretending to be trans, even though this receives far too much attention relative to the actual prejudice faced by real trans people. But aspects such as intersex babies and prejudice against trans people are fundamental to the issue. You really do need to understand and acknowledge them if you want to write with any authority on the issue.
It's hard to see how the rhetoric gets less toxic rather than more.
https://youtu.be/avAHsJgr4m0
At the end of the day people need to get to work and nobody is going to risk not getting to their job just because a nurse may be behind them in queue.
It's virtue signalling of the highest order and it's usually coming from those sitting with a car full of fuel themselves.
American TV would never make it now, I doubt British TV would have ever managed
Relatedly, I started watching Vigil last night. Of course the UK nuke deterrent sub is captained by a black man, of course the hero police officer is lesbian. The het white males are, so far, the villains.
I’m waiting for a brilliant tranny to torpedo everything
Bit late, one would have thought.
I liked him in Avenue 5, even if it had many of the same flaws of most of Armando Ianucci's work (principally, impossible to relate to most characters).
An even better line is "Telling Lies On The Side Of Buses Has Consequences. Who Knew?"
“The move will allow Octopus to recoup all costs incurred, including buying energy for customers of the failed supplier via an industry levy that ultimately falls on consumer bills.”
So higher energy bills for all, coming down the line in April next year, to pay for subsidised energy over the next six months.
The govt had better hope gas prices come back down, soon, otherwise April 2022 is gonna be bloody miserable.
Does anyone want to offer me odds that the first yougov published in May 2022 shows a lab lead?
Interesting to see what the other 3 parliaments in the world are. It was a surprise in the last paragraph.
Klinefelter's syndrome occurs in roughly 2 per 1,000 male births. It involves an XXY configuration of chromosomes, infertility, decreased libido, more feminine form. Having more X chromosomes is possible but comes with associated risks of reproductive, skeletal, and learning disorder problems.
XYY is associated with greater height and learning disabilities but no stat on frequency.
Turner's syndrome is per 10,000 female births, and is XO (ovaries fail to form and puberty does not occur naturally but can be induced with hormones).
XXX is associated with sterility and learning disabilities, although in rare cases birth is possible. Most such embryos are naturally aborted.
Intersexuality/hermaphroditism is described as extremely rare with 60 cases identified in North America/Europe over a 100 year period (may involved a testicle on one side and ovary on the other).
There's a few more beyond these.
My transport obsession is intact and I'm fully intent on passing it onto the next generation.
‘Diplomatic’ protests ain’t gonna cut it. China is Hitler’s Germany in about 1937
They've still confirmed my appointment. So good so far, but I suspect I'll find a dissenting line hard to navigate at director level.
"Public are stupid" from PBTories defending laissez-faire and neglect in a government in power = right and normal state of affairs.
If a Transwoman is polite and discrete they are likely to not draw a second glance as they slip into a cubicle. What seems to agitate is inappropriate behaviour, and that is where enforcement should lie. The essence of good manners is to make others feel comfortable. If someone is behaving inappropriately to other users, particularly vulnerable ones such as children or victims of violence, then that needs to be dealt with whatever their gender identification.
Last time I did that must have been at Bournemouth about 1998 and even then I was waiting for a plane so I am not sure at this distance in time if the open air viewing area was open to non-pax. In any case it had more caging and barbed wire than I had expected. I felt like Guy the Gorilla in Regents Park. But the fresh air was great and I was rewarded when, quite unexpectedly, a vintage Hunter came along and took off.
They should have knocked out the Taliban in 'Stan, helped stabilise the country and invested all their time and energy in special forces and CIA ops to root out Al-Qaeda worldwide. They never should have opened up Guantanamo, and the Patriot Act was an overreaction, and Iraq should have been just been contained.
Basically, America lost its head and became too hell-bent on revenge. It could have boxed much much cleverer.
"That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures."
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Life’s a more pleasant experience when you stop instinctively leaning towards bitterness and condescension every time you look upon your fellow Man.
I don't know why you keep trying to introduce a battle of the sexes dimension into this where it doesn't exist; we've got enough group polarisation as it is.
The captain: the actor is black, he seems to act the role well. It's not obviously even written as a black role (he's not banging on about overcoming the oppressors and the ratings are not making monkey noises in the background). The police officer: it seems to be a big part of the story, gets a fair bit of time. Whether it's particularly relevant overall or a side story with no great purpose, we'll see (just as valid a comment if the relationship of interest was with a man - could be relevant, could be filler).
The fact that there are some intersex people is irrelevant because trans people are not intersex people and are not, as I understand it, saying that they are. Trans activists are not seeking to define themselves as some third category, they are seeking to define themselves as one of the two sexes.
I have always and repeatedly stated that prejudice against and attacks on people for having gender dysphoria are wrong. I do note that the same courtesy is not extended the other way. When women are attacked for wishing to uphold women's rights, they are accused of phobias or told that they deserve it etc. Some are told that they should be murdered. Is this any less unacceptable? The reason this is once again a topic in politics is because a woman MP cannot go to her party's conference because of threats of violence against her.
Transpeople need medical resources and help. These remain woefully poor. The delay to get to be seen by a clinic is 2 years upwards. To put this into context, this is about the same as that which young men suffering from OCD have to wait to see a specialist clinic at The Maudsley Hospital. According to some studies (though research in this area needs more work) the risk of suicide amongst this group is 10 times what it is in the general population.
My concern is about possible policy changes which will limite or remove women's rights ie the rights to the single sex exemptions under the Equality Act. These are needed now as much as they have ever been. And yet - bizarrely - rather than campaigning for the medical help trans people need, activists seem more concerned with removing the right of rape victims to ask for a woman counsellor or or for refuges for female victims of domestic violence to keep men out or for women to have other single sex spaces, even though the law allows this.
Why is the Labour Party so determined to undermine the Equality Act, an Act they brought into force, when it comes to the rights of women?
By the way, I am a woman. Do not ever call me "cis".
Everyone has the right to feel safe when going about their lives.
Bugger me it's intense. Disturbing, depraved, dystopian, dark, but irresistible television. It's not just the scriptwriting, directing or acting that makes it either - all of which is superb - it's the set designs, atmosphere, mood music and soundtrack too. The moral conflicts. The humanity. Everything.
It's perfectly judged.
Biology can be weird.
Nine Elms station
Taken last Tuesday, one day after opening.
I actually find your philosophical ‘TERF’ arguments stronger. That self-ID represents a trivializing of womanhood. The obvious retort is what about female to male trans, but I guess you’d say, well, yes, but men are secure in their status/power in our (still) patriarchal society, so feel no need to kick up a fuss, which is a good point. My other retort would be that women are more supportive of transpeople than men are, most see no conflict with their own rights, and this is particularly true of younger women, where it’s overwhelming, but to this I guess you’d say, well, yes, because it’s older generation women who remember the fierce fights for equality, hence are more sensitive to encroachments, also a good point.
And is this men telling women what to think? I see why you say this but, no, I don’t think that’s fair. There are loads of men on the anti side of the debate and loads of women on the pro. I don’t see it as a male v female issue at all, to me it’s about allowing this small group of people to be themselves. Changing gender seems odd but I can imagine that one day it’ll be as “shrug” as homosexuality (almost) is today, in which case these battles will be looked back upon in a similar light to those around that. But who knows. The antis are strong at the moment, their arguments resonate, and I haven’t a clue where it’s going longer term.
I have to go now. But I did respond to your questions to me on the thread header I wrote the other day. Right at the end. Not going to repeat here. Just wanted to let you know that I did not ignore your questions.
Your first paragraph is very naive, btw. If anything the evidence - such as it is (too early to say) goes the other way.
Nor do I think this a generational issue. Daughter does not care if people want to transition but very firmly against transwomen competing in women's sports.
Anyway, have a nice day all.
It is necessary for big employers to document these things though, in order to meet the obligations of the Equality Act and other legislation.
(Editors are we going to be having a thread?)
https://live.daserste.de/
https://www.zdf.de/politik/wahlen/videos/bundestagswahl-berlin-mecklenburg-vorpommern-100.html
https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2021-09-26-BT-DE/index.shtml
https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-09/wahlergebnisse-bundestagswahl-2021-wahlkreise-karte-deutschland-live?utm_referrer=https://talkelections.org/
Danke!
DC
https://twitter.com/cbeaune/status/1442050030592933893