Luke Akehurst @lukeakehurst · 4h It's disappointing that Andy McDonald would distract from a successful conference by grandstanding like this. He hasn't been a high profile member of the shadow cabinet so his departure enables Keir to promote a heavier hitter, one who understands collective responsibility.
===
I think PB may dispute the "successful conference" tag there!
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Don't read it if you don't like it. That's the approach I take to the paper that hounded Caroline Flack to her death. Works for me.
No, that's not good enough
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
Right-winger ranting against the Guardian. Whatever next?
I can do rants. As you probably know. That was not a "rant"
To be fair, you've got me there. I know your rants, I've been subjected to them; that was no rant.
I was trying to find another word in place of rant but fuck it - I'm not a writer.
Edit: 'railing' Right-winger railing against the Guardian. That any better?
Twattish werewolf (likely drunk) barking at moon. That seems about right.
Yep, I'm happy with that
Twattish Werewolf (Likely Drunk)
That's me! To a tee. I might even adopt it as a living epitaph.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
I would too. But I also find it hard to condemn people for merely being rude, so long as they are not abusive, if they don't think it right to do so.
I think people are able to be rude, without it being an unacceptable view for people to hold.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
The Left need to be a bit careful. If they are not too careful they will end up hating Starmer even more than antichrist Blair:
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 3h The only consistent thing about Keir Starmer is his addiction to making promises driven entirely by his personal ambition which he then abandons
Conclusion: SKS must be doing something right...
I have an irrational hatred of Owen Jones. The trouble is, I have a feeling that if got to know him a bit better, took some time to read what he's got to say, and offer him a sympathetic ear, it would no longer be irrational.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
I would too. But I also find it hard to condemn people for merely being rude, so long as they are not abusive, if they don't think it right to do so.
I think people are able to be rude, without it being an unacceptable view for people to hold.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Luke Akehurst @lukeakehurst · 4h It's disappointing that Andy McDonald would distract from a successful conference by grandstanding like this. He hasn't been a high profile member of the shadow cabinet so his departure enables Keir to promote a heavier hitter, one who understands collective responsibility.
===
I think PB may dispute the "successful conference" tag there!
It depends what the function of conference is. Party rally with flags and lights and cult of the Dear Leader?, or a serious discussion over policies, and with decision making powers?
Labour conferences have long been more like the latter.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Luke Akehurst @lukeakehurst · 4h It's disappointing that Andy McDonald would distract from a successful conference by grandstanding like this. He hasn't been a high profile member of the shadow cabinet so his departure enables Keir to promote a heavier hitter, one who understands collective responsibility.
===
I think PB may dispute the "successful conference" tag there!
It depends what the function of conference is. Party rally with flags and lights and cult of the Dear Leader?, or a serious discussion over policies, and with decision making powers?
Labour conferences have long been more like the latter.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
I would too. But I also find it hard to condemn people for merely being rude, so long as they are not abusive, if they don't think it right to do so.
I think people are able to be rude, without it being an unacceptable view for people to hold.
I was brought up not to be rude
So was I. But we were probably also raised to be honest, and what if one's honest view offends another? And while many an arsehole has excused rudeness by claiming blunt honesty, better a bit of rudeness than false unanimity of views out of a desire for politeness.
As toxic as this debate is at least it is now being debated. Compromise may or may not be possible, but if there is a new orthodoxy it will win out through changing views, not because people clamped down on their own views because it'd be rude to voice them.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Nope. It’s because I really don’t care. Maybe that’s male privilege but I just don’t care what gender identity people have.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
Luke Akehurst @lukeakehurst · 4h It's disappointing that Andy McDonald would distract from a successful conference by grandstanding like this. He hasn't been a high profile member of the shadow cabinet so his departure enables Keir to promote a heavier hitter, one who understands collective responsibility.
===
I think PB may dispute the "successful conference" tag there!
Only because I don't know the criterion for a successful conference.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
Ah, the legal definition. Well that clearly trumps reality. I would be a bit worried to discover that a doctor didn't understand the limitations of that argument.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
And yet, under the law of common sense, embraced by 99.3% of sentient humanity, a "woman" cannot have a penis. If a human has a penis, then he is male. That's it. Male. A boy, or a man. Male.
There is a vanishingly small subset of people who are born with all the equipment, male and female, but this 0.00001% of humanity are known as hermaphrodites. Or people really really unlucky in injuries, but they were still born with a penis. Male
A woman has a womb, breasts, and a cervix. And XX chromosomes. Female. Woman
These are the absolutely fundamental defining characteristics of humankind, and much cruelty is done to both sexes - but especially female - because of it. Trying to pretend this difference does not exist is not just insane, it is wicked. The girls of Afghanistan are right now being denied an education because they have a cervix. That's it.
That it needs a Twattish Werewolf (Likely Drunk) such as me, to point this out, even as lefties piously assert their insane Woke drivel, is quite depressing
Have we reached the point where people are filling up and then mindlessly driving up and down motorways using petrol just so they can be ready to fill up again the next morning?
I am a firm believer that the lived experiences of the likes of JK Rowling and @Cyclefree makes their positions on self ID very understandable but I feel there also needs to be an effort to understand why younger women may not feel quite the same.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
Or a daily discussion on a political betting forum.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
Ah, the legal definition. Well that clearly trumps reality. I would be a bit worried to discover that a doctor didn't understand the limitations of that argument.
Access to gender reassignment surgery needs to be greatly improved if it is to be a prerequisite to formal gender reassignment. Access to psychiatrists able to diagnose gender dysphoria too*.
*I have some sympathy with the view that formally requiring a psychiatric diagnosis is intrinsically oppressive, similar in ways to homosexuality being diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, as it was until the Seventies.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Nope. It’s because I really don’t care. Maybe that’s male privilege but I just don’t care what gender identity people have.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
That is my position.
I don't have any militant, or even mild, anti trans-ism. I personally couldn't care less if a woman dressed as a man uses the gents loo at the Royal Opera House. I do, of course, understand that the ladies might not be very keen on the converse.
I do, however, have an extreme aversion to being told that I must deny basic facts, on pain of being accused of bigotry.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Nope. It’s because I really don’t care. Maybe that’s male privilege but I just don’t care what gender identity people have.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
That is my position.
You literally just said this:
"Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority"
Way to lose about 30% of the entire electorate. In one go. To hell with those "biological women"
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Nope. It’s because I really don’t care. Maybe that’s male privilege but I just don’t care what gender identity people have.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
That is my position.
You literally just said this:
"Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority"
Way to lose about 30% of the entire electorate. In one go. To hell with those "biological women"
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
And yet, under the law of common sense, embraced by 99.3% of sentient humanity, a "woman" cannot have a penis. If a human has a penis, then he is male. That's it. Male. A boy, or a man. Male.
There is a vanishingly small subset of people who are born with all the equipment, male and female, but this 0.00001% of humanity are known as hermaphrodites. Or people really really unlucky in injuries, but they were still born with a penis. Male
A woman has a womb, breasts, and a cervix. And XX chromosomes. Female. Woman
These are the absolutely fundamental defining characteristics of humankind, and much cruelty is done to both sexes - but especially female - because of it. Trying to pretend this difference does not exist is not just insane, it is wicked. The girls of Afghanistan are right now being denied an education because they have a cervix. That's it.
That it needs a Twattish Werewolf (Likely Drunk) such as me, to point this out, even as lefties piously assert their insane Woke drivel, is quite depressing
What if they are born with both oysters and snails? What does 99.3% of sentient humanity make of that?
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
And yet, under the law of common sense, embraced by 99.3% of sentient humanity, a "woman" cannot have a penis. If a human has a penis, then he is male. That's it. Male. A boy, or a man. Male.
There is a vanishingly small subset of people who are born with all the equipment, male and female, but this 0.00001% of humanity are known as hermaphrodites. Or people really really unlucky in injuries, but they were still born with a penis. Male
A woman has a womb, breasts, and a cervix. And XX chromosomes. Female. Woman
These are the absolutely fundamental defining characteristics of humankind, and much cruelty is done to both sexes - but especially female - because of it. Trying to pretend this difference does not exist is not just insane, it is wicked. The girls of Afghanistan are right now being denied an education because they have a cervix. That's it.
That it needs a Twattish Werewolf (Likely Drunk) such as me, to point this out, even as lefties piously assert their insane Woke drivel, is quite depressing
No, just pointing out the current legal position, which is unchanged by this government.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Nope. It’s because I really don’t care. Maybe that’s male privilege but I just don’t care what gender identity people have.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
That is my position.
I don't have any militant, or even mild, anti trans-ism. I personally couldn't care less if a woman dressed as a man uses the gents loo at the Royal Opera House. I do, of course, understand that the ladies might not be very keen on the converse.
I do, however, have an extreme aversion to being told that I must deny basic facts, on pain of being accused of bigotry.
To you its “basic facts” and maybe to others it isn’t.
I am a firm believer that the lived experiences of the likes of JK Rowling and @Cyclefree makes their positions on self ID very understandable but I feel there also needs to be an effort to understand why younger women may not feel quite the same.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
Last week it was Ed Davey at the centre of this debate, so it varies.
I am a firm believer that the lived experiences of the likes of JK Rowling and @Cyclefree makes their positions on self ID very understandable but I feel there also needs to be an effort to understand why younger women may not feel quite the same.
I am a firm believer that the lived experiences of the likes of JK Rowling and @Cyclefree makes their positions on self ID very understandable but I feel there also needs to be an effort to understand why younger women may not feel quite the same.
Self ID would be much less of an issue if the Gender Recognition process wasn't so protracted, and often obstructive.
There are no bouncers on lavatories, so access relies on consent of other users. A discrete Trans-woman would barely get a second glance, and that infamous phallus not visible as only out in a cubicle. The problems come from inappropriate behaviour, or fear of it. Similar in some ways to the fear that there used to be of appointing gay teachers or foster parents. I remember when those were very contentious too.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Nope. It’s because I really don’t care. Maybe that’s male privilege but I just don’t care what gender identity people have.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
That is my position.
I don't have any militant, or even mild, anti trans-ism. I personally couldn't care less if a woman dressed as a man uses the gents loo at the Royal Opera House. I do, of course, understand that the ladies might not be very keen on the converse.
I do, however, have an extreme aversion to being told that I must deny basic facts, on pain of being accused of bigotry.
To you its “basic facts” and maybe to others it isn’t.
Well, if you really think mammalian biology is not 'fact', then I'm afraid you're in the same category as flat-earthers and those who think vaccines are made out of silicon chips so that Bill Gates can control us.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
Last week it was Ed Davey at the centre of this debate, so it varies.
Fair point. Tho the Labour Party seems intent on supplanting the Lib Dems in the Trans Madness Spotlight. Like moths to a burning flame
A couple of years ago we were being told that lorries would be driving down the motorways by themselves, without drivers. What happened to this idea?
Well, we all know that's coming.
Which is probably another reason why it's hard to recruit people to train as drivers right now. At least with Deliveroo, you need a person to - you know - have the food over.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
That’s my whole point. Politicians should avoid something there isn’t an answer. As you imply, let them into a woman’s refuge you may be making a mistake, but the alternative is also make a mistake, cruel and destroying to someone who doesn’t deserve it. You understand? All those of you charging in thinking it’s cut and dried and so obvious what side to take.
That is why Gallowgates most caring and thoughtful approach is the best. Rather like the need for something, like religion, when we can’t join in the gaps.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Nope. It’s because I really don’t care. Maybe that’s male privilege but I just don’t care what gender identity people have.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
That is my position.
I don't have any militant, or even mild, anti trans-ism. I personally couldn't care less if a woman dressed as a man uses the gents loo at the Royal Opera House. I do, of course, understand that the ladies might not be very keen on the converse.
I do, however, have an extreme aversion to being told that I must deny basic facts, on pain of being accused of bigotry.
To you its “basic facts” and maybe to others it isn’t.
Well, if you really think mammalian biology is not 'fact', then I'm afraid you're in the same category as flat-earthers and those who think vaccines are made out of silicon chips so that Bill Gates can control us.
A couple of years ago we were being told that lorries would be driving down the motorways by themselves, without drivers. What happened to this idea?
Well, we all know that's coming.
Which is probably another reason why it's hard to recruit people to train as drivers right now. At least with Deliveroo, you need a person to - you know - have the food over.
How does the AI auto driver fuel truck actually get the fuel into the pumps though?
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
For a "pointless, idiotic, off-putting and eerily damaging debate", you seem to have a mighty affection for a daily dabble in it.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
For a "pointless, idiotic, off-putting and eerily damaging debate", you seem to have a mighty affection for a daily dabble in it.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
Labour must have the most skewed, fucked up focus groups of any party on the planet.
A couple of years ago we were being told that lorries would be driving down the motorways by themselves, without drivers. What happened to this idea?
Well, we all know that's coming.
Which is probably another reason why it's hard to recruit people to train as drivers right now. At least with Deliveroo, you need a person to - you know - have the food over.
How does the AI auto driver fuel truck actually get the fuel into the pumps though?
Y’know in the year 2525, our arms will just hang by our sides.
As soon as those Japanese sex robots can get up and make a cheese and onion sandwich after the pleasure session, cheap at twice the price IMO.
I’m merely a very low paid public sector worker, it pains me our resident drunken werewolf will order one before me.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
Great comment. This is true on so many issues.
So far on the trans issue, the people that I'm aware have faced a backlash have been people who deliberately baited the trans community. Typically with pointed and often factually inaccurate (regardless of whether you acknowledge trans identity) remarks about "obvious biological facts". Typically also with scaremongering about a threat to women, akin to the idea last century that gay people were out to corrupt our children. For example, JK Rowling has done both of those things. That doesn't for a moment excuse the disgusting abuse she and others have received.
However, I agree that there is a danger of an echo-chamber forming around the issue such that people get condemned for innocently use terms in a way that is accurate >99% of the time. That would do a lot of harm, and ultimately it would be trans people who would suffer the most.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
Ah, the legal definition. Well that clearly trumps reality. I would be a bit worried to discover that a doctor didn't understand the limitations of that argument.
Access to gender reassignment surgery needs to be greatly improved if it is to be a prerequisite to formal gender reassignment. Access to psychiatrists able to diagnose gender dysphoria too*.
*I have some sympathy with the view that formally requiring a psychiatric diagnosis is intrinsically oppressive, similar in ways to homosexuality being diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, as it was until the Seventies.
People are free to do what they want with their own bodies. However, I am finding it hard to reconcile the body positivity movement, that seeks to encourage people to accept their body as it is, rather than to chase an idealised weight or shape, with the concept of rejecting one's own body to such an extent that you would want surgery to change your genitalia.
Clearly medical professionals have decided that there is a difference between this and the mental disturbances that are involved in the self-hatred of the body that leads to anorexia or bulimia, but I struggle to understand what the distinction is.
I've always viewed those parts of the beauty industry that encourage women to have various parts of their body surgically modified, in order to fit into the latest fashion of a body ideal, as being deeply problematic. I don't see why that view should be different when the person having surgery to fit the female body ideal was born a man. Their choice, of course, but the whole thing seems wildly inconsistent and I can't make any sense of it.
Of course, if I meet someone who introduces themself as Samantha, I'm not going to question them on whether their parents originally called them Samuel. It's none of my business. But if I was working in medical science I'd want to know what the biological sex was of people I was studying, more than the gender identity they carry around in their heads.
I am a firm believer that the lived experiences of the likes of JK Rowling and @Cyclefree makes their positions on self ID very understandable but I feel there also needs to be an effort to understand why younger women may not feel quite the same.
So why don't younger women feel the same way?
It does seem that women are more Trans inclusive than men, including in sport etc, particularly at younger ages. Those most bothered are older conservative men. Interestingly class doesn't influence it much, and nearly a third in most groups quite undecided.
To me there seems to be an inherent contradiction in requiring someone to live for 2 years as their new gender, while denying them access to facilities of that gender. Are they not supposed to go out?
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
For a "pointless, idiotic, off-putting and eerily damaging debate", you seem to have a mighty affection for a daily dabble in it.
Because it damages the Left, almost exclusively
Indeed. It is a damaging cleavage to be sure. But @Gallowgate makes some salient points which I have yet to see properly addressed. Why do more men than women seem from the polling to have a problem with trans people? And why do young people of all genders and none seem to not give a tinker's toss about it? I would add. Why do we hear almost nothing about trans men? @Foxy suggests an analogy with gay rights 40 or 50 years ago. I think these are interesting questions to probe. Suggests to me this is in its very infancy. It damages the Left for now, sure. But like gay rights, the shoe may be on the other foot soon. Which, as Foxy also notes, may be why the government has done the square root of bugger all thus far.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
Ah, the legal definition. Well that clearly trumps reality. I would be a bit worried to discover that a doctor didn't understand the limitations of that argument.
Access to gender reassignment surgery needs to be greatly improved if it is to be a prerequisite to formal gender reassignment. Access to psychiatrists able to diagnose gender dysphoria too*.
*I have some sympathy with the view that formally requiring a psychiatric diagnosis is intrinsically oppressive, similar in ways to homosexuality being diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, as it was until the Seventies.
People are free to do what they want with their own bodies. However, I am finding it hard to reconcile the body positivity movement, that seeks to encourage people to accept their body as it is, rather than to chase an idealised weight or shape, with the concept of rejecting one's own body to such an extent that you would want surgery to change your genitalia.
Clearly medical professionals have decided that there is a difference between this and the mental disturbances that are involved in the self-hatred of the body that leads to anorexia or bulimia, but I struggle to understand what the distinction is.
I've always viewed those parts of the beauty industry that encourage women to have various parts of their body surgically modified, in order to fit into the latest fashion of a body ideal, as being deeply problematic. I don't see why that view should be different when the person having surgery to fit the female body ideal was born a man. Their choice, of course, but the whole thing seems wildly inconsistent and I can't make any sense of it.
Of course, if I meet someone who introduces themself as Samantha, I'm not going to question them on whether their parents originally called them Samuel. It's none of my business. But if I was working in medical science I'd want to know what the biological sex was of people I was studying, more than the gender identity they carry around in their heads.
A couple of years ago we were being told that lorries would be driving down the motorways by themselves, without drivers. What happened to this idea?
Well, we all know that's coming.
Which is probably another reason why it's hard to recruit people to train as drivers right now. At least with Deliveroo, you need a person to - you know - have the food over.
How does the AI auto driver fuel truck actually get the fuel into the pumps though?
That's relatively easy: people at the gas station can do it.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
Ah, the legal definition. Well that clearly trumps reality. I would be a bit worried to discover that a doctor didn't understand the limitations of that argument.
Access to gender reassignment surgery needs to be greatly improved if it is to be a prerequisite to formal gender reassignment. Access to psychiatrists able to diagnose gender dysphoria too*.
*I have some sympathy with the view that formally requiring a psychiatric diagnosis is intrinsically oppressive, similar in ways to homosexuality being diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, as it was until the Seventies.
People are free to do what they want with their own bodies. However, I am finding it hard to reconcile the body positivity movement, that seeks to encourage people to accept their body as it is, rather than to chase an idealised weight or shape, with the concept of rejecting one's own body to such an extent that you would want surgery to change your genitalia.
Clearly medical professionals have decided that there is a difference between this and the mental disturbances that are involved in the self-hatred of the body that leads to anorexia or bulimia, but I struggle to understand what the distinction is.
I've always viewed those parts of the beauty industry that encourage women to have various parts of their body surgically modified, in order to fit into the latest fashion of a body ideal, as being deeply problematic. I don't see why that view should be different when the person having surgery to fit the female body ideal was born a man. Their choice, of course, but the whole thing seems wildly inconsistent and I can't make any sense of it.
Of course, if I meet someone who introduces themself as Samantha, I'm not going to question them on whether their parents originally called them Samuel. It's none of my business. But if I was working in medical science I'd want to know what the biological sex was of people I was studying, more than the gender identity they carry around in their heads.
I agree to an extent.
I also think the whole gender vs biological sex is very constricting in terms of what constitutes a man or a woman. Often these seem stereotyped to the point of caricature. When I used to share a clinic with the urologist who did gender reassignment, none of his patients wore trousers, as if wearing a dress or skirt was the only feminine thing to do. It was a surprisingly middle aged clientele too.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
Ah, the legal definition. Well that clearly trumps reality. I would be a bit worried to discover that a doctor didn't understand the limitations of that argument.
Access to gender reassignment surgery needs to be greatly improved if it is to be a prerequisite to formal gender reassignment. Access to psychiatrists able to diagnose gender dysphoria too*.
*I have some sympathy with the view that formally requiring a psychiatric diagnosis is intrinsically oppressive, similar in ways to homosexuality being diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, as it was until the Seventies.
People are free to do what they want with their own bodies. However, I am finding it hard to reconcile the body positivity movement, that seeks to encourage people to accept their body as it is, rather than to chase an idealised weight or shape, with the concept of rejecting one's own body to such an extent that you would want surgery to change your genitalia.
Clearly medical professionals have decided that there is a difference between this and the mental disturbances that are involved in the self-hatred of the body that leads to anorexia or bulimia, but I struggle to understand what the distinction is.
I've always viewed those parts of the beauty industry that encourage women to have various parts of their body surgically modified, in order to fit into the latest fashion of a body ideal, as being deeply problematic. I don't see why that view should be different when the person having surgery to fit the female body ideal was born a man. Their choice, of course, but the whole thing seems wildly inconsistent and I can't make any sense of it.
Of course, if I meet someone who introduces themself as Samantha, I'm not going to question them on whether their parents originally called them Samuel. It's none of my business. But if I was working in medical science I'd want to know what the biological sex was of people I was studying, more than the gender identity they carry around in their heads.
Anorexia and bulimia are inherently harmful conditions, that can kill. I am no expert, but I think it's harder to come to that conclusion if someone identifies as a different gender than the sex of their body. Elective surgery, of course, carries risks. And violence from those who are intolerant of alternative lifestyles can also be a risk. But is the state of believing yourself having a different gender harmful in itself? I think it possibly isn't.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
And in the very centre of this pointless, idiotic, bizarre, off-putting and eerily damaging debate is: the British Labour Party. Well done
For a "pointless, idiotic, off-putting and eerily damaging debate", you seem to have a mighty affection for a daily dabble in it.
Because it damages the Left, almost exclusively
Indeed. It is a damaging cleavage to be sure. But @Gallowgate makes some salient points which I have yet to see properly addressed. Why do more men than women seem from the polling to have a problem with trans people? And why do young people of all genders and none seem to not give a tinker's toss about it? I would add. Why do we hear almost nothing about trans men? @Foxy suggests an analogy with gay rights 40 or 50 years ago. I think these are interesting questions to probe. Suggests to me this is in its very infancy. It damages the Left for now, sure. But like gay rights, the shoe may be on the other foot soon. Which, as Foxy also notes, may be why the government has done the square root of bugger all thus far.
All good questions. I've no idea on the first. On the second, I would guess it's because they don't have such ingrained ideas to be overcome, but I could be wrong. The third seems the easiest. Anyone who claimed that trans men were a threat to cisgender "men's rights" would be laughed out of any political party I've heard of.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
@Foxy I also dislike the ultra feminism associated with trans (and drag as well) sometimes that almost suggests if a woman doesn’t conform to that stereotype it makes them less of a woman. Contradictions are tough!
A couple of years ago we were being told that lorries would be driving down the motorways by themselves, without drivers. What happened to this idea?
Well, we all know that's coming.
Which is probably another reason why it's hard to recruit people to train as drivers right now. At least with Deliveroo, you need a person to - you know - have the food over.
How does the AI auto driver fuel truck actually get the fuel into the pumps though?
I am a firm believer that the lived experiences of the likes of JK Rowling and @Cyclefree makes their positions on self ID very understandable but I feel there also needs to be an effort to understand why younger women may not feel quite the same.
So why don't younger women feel the same way?
It does seem that women are more Trans inclusive than men, including in sport etc, particularly at younger ages. Those most bothered are older conservative men. Interestingly class doesn't influence it much, and nearly a third in most groups quite undecided.
To me there seems to be an inherent contradiction in requiring someone to live for 2 years as their new gender, while denying them access to facilities of that gender. Are they not supposed to go out?
You carefully ignore this, which entirely contradicts your position .
"Following a brief explanation of what the current requirements are for someone to legally change their gender (exact wording can be seen in the chart below), by 47% to 28% Britons tended to think that this process should not be made easier. While they are pro-transgender rights on most of the other topics, on this subject Lib Dem and Remain voters, women and 25-49 year olds tend to oppose making the legal process easier."
Britons, young and old, Remain or Leave, left or right, believe you can't just say "I'm a woman" and walk into a female changing room without living as the opposite sex and showing that you mean it, and most expect you to lose your penis
"It is worth noting, however, that Britons do not support such access for those who have not yet undergone gender reassignment surgery. By 41-46% to 26-30% people oppose those who have not physically transitioned being able to use their new gender’s changing rooms. Likewise, 39-41% oppose them being able to use their new gender’s toilets, compared to 31-32% who are in support."
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
Does anyone actually go to the cinema and not have popcorn?
Having popcorn at the cinema is like having a pint at the pub. Its all part of the experience.
There are some decent hot dog "diner" restaurants about, but popcorn is perfectly designed for the cinema. Can nibble on it over a couple of hours while watching the movie, without making any noise to disturb anyone else.
I don't. Occasionally have had some of the bagged toffee popcorn, but that's like 1 in 10 times. Not really a fan of it, especially when there's so much of it even on the small.
It used to actually cost more to have a smaller drink for some reason, part of meal deal probably, so in the end they finally agreed to charge me for the larger one even as I had a small (still large) one.
I never buy popcorn at the cinema, and agree that the ‘food’ in most cinema chains is inexplicably shite. I pay extra now to go to posh cinemas, just so I can then pay more for decent wine and snacks.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
You've evaded the question.
For good reason.
For very good reason, indeed. Because you don't like the answer which you know to be true
Under British law they can, so the answer is yes.
Ah, the legal definition. Well that clearly trumps reality. I would be a bit worried to discover that a doctor didn't understand the limitations of that argument.
Access to gender reassignment surgery needs to be greatly improved if it is to be a prerequisite to formal gender reassignment. Access to psychiatrists able to diagnose gender dysphoria too*.
*I have some sympathy with the view that formally requiring a psychiatric diagnosis is intrinsically oppressive, similar in ways to homosexuality being diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, as it was until the Seventies.
People are free to do what they want with their own bodies. However, I am finding it hard to reconcile the body positivity movement, that seeks to encourage people to accept their body as it is, rather than to chase an idealised weight or shape, with the concept of rejecting one's own body to such an extent that you would want surgery to change your genitalia.
Clearly medical professionals have decided that there is a difference between this and the mental disturbances that are involved in the self-hatred of the body that leads to anorexia or bulimia, but I struggle to understand what the distinction is.
I've always viewed those parts of the beauty industry that encourage women to have various parts of their body surgically modified, in order to fit into the latest fashion of a body ideal, as being deeply problematic. I don't see why that view should be different when the person having surgery to fit the female body ideal was born a man. Their choice, of course, but the whole thing seems wildly inconsistent and I can't make any sense of it.
Of course, if I meet someone who introduces themself as Samantha, I'm not going to question them on whether their parents originally called them Samuel. It's none of my business. But if I was working in medical science I'd want to know what the biological sex was of people I was studying, more than the gender identity they carry around in their heads.
If my missus was up she could provide you with countless links. Which may or may not answer your questions. And which might enrage, intrigue, or convert you. But she's asleep, so I can't.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
Yes, I think that it requires gender dysphoria (,to understand the discomfort. Personally I find anorexia and bulimia incomprehensible too as an experience, though have some academic knowledge.
Indeed, I am not sure that my own self identity is defined along gender lines. I see myself take on many descriptors, but wouldn't put "man" on the list. Is that because it doesn't matter? or is it that it is so omnipresent that it doesn't need stating?
I am a firm believer that the lived experiences of the likes of JK Rowling and @Cyclefree makes their positions on self ID very understandable but I feel there also needs to be an effort to understand why younger women may not feel quite the same.
So why don't younger women feel the same way?
It does seem that women are more Trans inclusive than men, including in sport etc, particularly at younger ages. Those most bothered are older conservative men. Interestingly class doesn't influence it much, and nearly a third in most groups quite undecided.
To me there seems to be an inherent contradiction in requiring someone to live for 2 years as their new gender, while denying them access to facilities of that gender. Are they not supposed to go out?
You carefully ignore this, which entirely contradicts your position .
"Following a brief explanation of what the current requirements are for someone to legally change their gender (exact wording can be seen in the chart below), by 47% to 28% Britons tended to think that this process should not be made easier. While they are pro-transgender rights on most of the other topics, on this subject Lib Dem and Remain voters, women and 25-49 year olds tend to oppose making the legal process easier."
Britons, young and old, Remain or Leave, left or right, believe you can't just say "I'm a woman" and walk into a female changing room without living as the opposite sex and showing that you mean it, and most expect you to lose your penis
"It is worth noting, however, that Britons do not support such access for those who have not yet undergone gender reassignment surgery. By 41-46% to 26-30% people oppose those who have not physically transitioned being able to use their new gender’s changing rooms. Likewise, 39-41% oppose them being able to use their new gender’s toilets, compared to 31-32% who are in support."
No, it doesn't contradict what I said. It just shows that polled opinions are not always consistent.
@Foxy I also dislike the ultra feminism associated with trans (and drag as well) sometimes that almost suggests if a woman doesn’t conform to that stereotype it makes them less of a woman. Contradictions are tough!
Drag is hugely controversial in the trans community. And ultra femininity (high femme) is seen as very middle aged. T-shirt and jeans is becoming more popular. It is, after all, what most young women wear much of the time.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
@Foxy I also dislike the ultra feminism associated with trans (and drag as well) sometimes that almost suggests if a woman doesn’t conform to that stereotype it makes them less of a woman. Contradictions are tough!
Drag is hugely controversial in the trans community. And ultra femininity (high femme) is seen as very middle aged. T-shirt and jeans is becoming more popular. It is, after all, what most young women wear much of the time.
Yes, that may well be true. Certainly at Leicester's recent Pride event, there was not always an "ultra femme" look, but then it wasn't always easy to decide which initial people were. There did seem to be a lot of young bisexual females, judging by the numbers of Bi flags, but how many were just showing solidarity rather than outing themselves? None of my business really.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
So, my daughter is 13, and one of her friends has asked to be called Norman, and says she now identifies as a man.
All the 13 year old girls think this is fine, and normal. And if she wants to be called Norman, good for her him, and I'm totally OK with respecting that choice.
But I don't really understand why she thinks she's a man. She has no male characteristics that I can divine, and has no male friends. (Not that many 13 year old girls have male friends.)
So, what is the male-ness that she thinks she possesses?
Labour must have the most skewed, fucked up focus groups of any party on the planet.
"It's what the voters want us to address!"
99% of floating voters: "The fuck it is...."
The only people I know who are talking about it are people on PB, some of whom seem obsessed. I've not heard it mentioned once at the Labour conference.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
Yes, I think that it requires gender dysphoria (,to understand the discomfort. Personally I find anorexia and bulimia incomprehensible too as an experience, though have some academic knowledge.
Indeed, I am not sure that my own self identity is defined along gender lines. I see myself take on many descriptors, but wouldn't put "man" on the list. Is that because it doesn't matter? or is it that it is so omnipresent that it doesn't need stating?
I guess that the latter point is one of the things that bothers me. I never really fitted in with most boys when I was growing up, and I still don't. I'm more comfortable being the only man at Knit Night at the pub on Monday evening, then I would be to go to a pub on a different night when it's male-dominated to watch the football. I don't like the male stereotypes.
But I don't see that it makes me any less a man. I just feel that society has a very restrictive idea of what being a man entails. And I feel that the justification for transgenderism involves reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than breaking them down. And that makes me feel less free to be who I am.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
That is a beautifully honest, reflective and moving post if I may say so. One of the best on here. And certainly a cut above the usual "stands to reason it's just sciencey common sense/ no it isn't you bigot" stuff.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
Yes, I think that it requires gender dysphoria (,to understand the discomfort. Personally I find anorexia and bulimia incomprehensible too as an experience, though have some academic knowledge.
Indeed, I am not sure that my own self identity is defined along gender lines. I see myself take on many descriptors, but wouldn't put "man" on the list. Is that because it doesn't matter? or is it that it is so omnipresent that it doesn't need stating?
I guess that the latter point is one of the things that bothers me. I never really fitted in with most boys when I was growing up, and I still don't. I'm more comfortable being the only man at Knit Night at the pub on Monday evening, then I would be to go to a pub on a different night when it's male-dominated to watch the football. I don't like the male stereotypes.
But I don't see that it makes me any less a man. I just feel that society has a very restrictive idea of what being a man entails. And I feel that the justification for transgenderism involves reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than breaking them down. And that makes me feel less free to be who I am.
Yes, I have some sympathy with that. I work in a mostly female workplace and most of my friends are women (Mrs Foxy doesn't mind, perhaps because she works there too!). Often I am the only bloke in the team. I do rather like the footy, but being a fan in Leicester seems not to be aligned with either gender or ethnicity.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
That is a beautifully honest, reflective and moving post if I may say so. One of the best on here. And certainly a cut above the usual /stands to reason it's just sciencey common sense/ no it isn't you bigot stuff,"
Labour must have the most skewed, fucked up focus groups of any party on the planet.
"It's what the voters want us to address!"
99% of floating voters: "The fuck it is...."
The only people I know who are talking about it are people on PB, some of whom seem obsessed. I've not heard it mentioned once at the Labour conference.
Well blow me down with a feather. Who da thunk it?
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
That’s the most brilliant response. Just ask what they would prefer so you avoid what upsets them or makes them uncomfortable.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
"If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she"
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
And that’s a fair debate to have. But when you have one side screaming “TERF SCUM” and the other side screaming “MEN IN DRESSES” you get nowhere
Or a daily discussion on a political betting forum.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
So, my daughter is 13, and one of her friends has asked to be called Norman, and says she now identifies as a man.
All the 13 year old girls think this is fine, and normal. And if she wants to be called Norman, good for her him, and I'm totally OK with respecting that choice.
But I don't really understand why she thinks she's a man. She has no male characteristics that I can divine, and has no male friends. (Not that many 13 year old girls have male friends.)
So, what is the male-ness that she thinks she possesses?
Shortly before my daughter was born I read Germaine Greer's The Whole Woman. The chapter that made the greatest impression on me was the one where she rejected any idea of a special role for fathers that was distinct from that of mothers. The role of a father was no different from that of a mother - to love and care for their child.
And, mostly, that's how I view the two sexes. Men and women are both people, and I don't think there's anything fundamentally different between the two sexes, except for what we've been taught, or except for those things that are part of the sexual dimorphism (bell curve for height, muscle mass, body fat, etc and different roles in sexual reproduction).
So I wouldn't see an interest in trainspotting as being a male trait (just a weird trait). I don't see what it would have to do with genitalia at all.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
So, my daughter is 13, and one of her friends has asked to be called Norman, and says she now identifies as a man.
All the 13 year old girls think this is fine, and normal. And if she wants to be called Norman, good for her him, and I'm totally OK with respecting that choice.
But I don't really understand why she thinks she's a man. She has no male characteristics that I can divine, and has no male friends. (Not that many 13 year old girls have male friends.)
So, what is the male-ness that she thinks she possesses?
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
So, my daughter is 13, and one of her friends has asked to be called Norman, and says she now identifies as a man.
All the 13 year old girls think this is fine, and normal. And if she wants to be called Norman, good for her him, and I'm totally OK with respecting that choice.
But I don't really understand why she thinks she's a man. She has no male characteristics that I can divine, and has no male friends. (Not that many 13 year old girls have male friends.)
So, what is the male-ness that she thinks she possesses?
I have a huge problem with this. Norman? FFS!!!
Normana was the name of the daughter of one of Harry Enfield's Tory characters.
So I guess we’re going to have men with cervical and ovarian cancer and women with testicular cancer. I hope they screen appropriately - because gender = sex has consequences.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
That is a beautifully honest, reflective and moving post if I may say so. One of the best on here. And certainly a cut above the usual /stands to reason it's just sciencey common sense/ no it isn't you bigot stuff,"
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
So, my daughter is 13, and one of her friends has asked to be called Norman, and says she now identifies as a man.
All the 13 year old girls think this is fine, and normal. And if she wants to be called Norman, good for her him, and I'm totally OK with respecting that choice.
But I don't really understand why she thinks she's a man. She has no male characteristics that I can divine, and has no male friends. (Not that many 13 year old girls have male friends.)
So, what is the male-ness that she thinks she possesses?
I have a huge problem with this. Norman? FFS!!!
Normana was the name of the daughter of one of Harry Enfield's Tory characters.
Funny you should mention Harry Enfield, because reading this thread made me think of this sketch, and look it up on YouTube
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
Yes, I think that it requires gender dysphoria (,to understand the discomfort. Personally I find anorexia and bulimia incomprehensible too as an experience, though have some academic knowledge.
Indeed, I am not sure that my own self identity is defined along gender lines. I see myself take on many descriptors, but wouldn't put "man" on the list. Is that because it doesn't matter? or is it that it is so omnipresent that it doesn't need stating?
I guess that the latter point is one of the things that bothers me. I never really fitted in with most boys when I was growing up, and I still don't. I'm more comfortable being the only man at Knit Night at the pub on Monday evening, then I would be to go to a pub on a different night when it's male-dominated to watch the football. I don't like the male stereotypes.
But I don't see that it makes me any less a man. I just feel that society has a very restrictive idea of what being a man entails. And I feel that the justification for transgenderism involves reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than breaking them down. And that makes me feel less free to be who I am.
Agree with much of this. Fits with a lot of my experience. I'm comfortable around women. Not around men, particularly. But I don't feel that makes me any less of a man. Maybe a radical smashing of gender is the answer? I dunno. But being trans is very much about breaking down these stereotypes. See also the rise of non-binary. Certainly among the young
So I guess we’re going to have men with cervical and ovarian cancer and women with testicular cancer. I hope they screen appropriately - because gender = sex has consequences.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
Yes, I think that it requires gender dysphoria (,to understand the discomfort. Personally I find anorexia and bulimia incomprehensible too as an experience, though have some academic knowledge.
Indeed, I am not sure that my own self identity is defined along gender lines. I see myself take on many descriptors, but wouldn't put "man" on the list. Is that because it doesn't matter? or is it that it is so omnipresent that it doesn't need stating?
I guess that the latter point is one of the things that bothers me. I never really fitted in with most boys when I was growing up, and I still don't. I'm more comfortable being the only man at Knit Night at the pub on Monday evening, then I would be to go to a pub on a different night when it's male-dominated to watch the football. I don't like the male stereotypes.
But I don't see that it makes me any less a man. I just feel that society has a very restrictive idea of what being a man entails. And I feel that the justification for transgenderism involves reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than breaking them down. And that makes me feel less free to be who I am.
I'm similar. In self-indulgent moments, I've even envied both gay and trans people for having an identity and a group to associate with being different. But I've never for one instant considered identifying with either group, which for me would be an utter lie. Even if I had no morals, why would I put myself through that?
That's one of the reasons I completely accept the validity of trans identity: the alternative is just too implausible. (That doesn't exclude the possibility that an individual may misidentify as trans due to other issues, and indeed some people do regret transitioning.)
So I guess we’re going to have men with cervical and ovarian cancer and women with testicular cancer. I hope they screen appropriately - because gender = sex has consequences.
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
So, my daughter is 13, and one of her friends has asked to be called Norman, and says she now identifies as a man.
All the 13 year old girls think this is fine, and normal. And if she wants to be called Norman, good for her him, and I'm totally OK with respecting that choice.
But I don't really understand why she thinks she's a man. She has no male characteristics that I can divine, and has no male friends. (Not that many 13 year old girls have male friends.)
So, what is the male-ness that she thinks she possesses?
@LostPassword I also have some difficulty with the promotion of surgery to chop bits off when I was brought up with the ideal that we should be proud of and accepting of who we are, regardless of if it’s not the ideal (society or personal). I do however appreciate that maybe I just don’t understand because I don’t experience gender dysmorphia.
I don't understand. I'd like to think I was capable of understanding. That I could be persuaded.
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
That is a beautifully honest, reflective and moving post if I may say so. One of the best on here. And certainly a cut above the usual /stands to reason it's just sciencey common sense/ no it isn't you bigot stuff,"
Comments
Luke Akehurst
@lukeakehurst
·
4h
It's disappointing that Andy McDonald would distract from a successful conference by grandstanding like this. He hasn't been a high profile member of the shadow cabinet so his departure enables Keir to promote a heavier hitter, one who understands collective responsibility.
===
I think PB may dispute the "successful conference" tag there!
I've been driving around for ages trying to find petrol but I can't because of all these idiots panic buying.
I think people are able to be rude, without it being an unacceptable view for people to hold.
Labour conferences have long been more like the latter.
As toxic as this debate is at least it is now being debated. Compromise may or may not be possible, but if there is a new orthodoxy it will win out through changing views, not because people clamped down on their own views because it'd be rude to voice them.
Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority in younger age groups so I fear your militant anti-trans-ism may be a dying position.
That is my position.
To She or not, that is the question.
I predict anyone trying to score Party Political points in the Trans row will get career badly scorched in subsequent interviews.
First up, the blundering Jav.
@AaronBastani
·
2h
Wow. 75% of CLP delegates voted for PR. And it still lost!
That's isn't the nub of the issue as far as the feminists like JK are concerned as I understand it. The issue is whether that person can ask to be referred to as 'she' and also therefore be allowed into female only spaces like a woman's prison or a refuge.
There is a vanishingly small subset of people who are born with all the equipment, male and female, but this 0.00001% of humanity are known as hermaphrodites. Or people really really unlucky in injuries, but they were still born with a penis. Male
A woman has a womb, breasts, and a cervix. And XX chromosomes. Female. Woman
These are the absolutely fundamental defining characteristics of humankind, and much cruelty is done to both sexes - but especially female - because of it. Trying to pretend this difference does not exist is not just insane, it is wicked. The girls of Afghanistan are right now being denied an education because they have a cervix. That's it.
That it needs a Twattish Werewolf (Likely Drunk) such as me, to point this out, even as lefties piously assert their insane Woke drivel, is quite depressing
*I have some sympathy with the view that formally requiring a psychiatric diagnosis is intrinsically oppressive, similar in ways to homosexuality being diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, as it was until the Seventies.
I do, however, have an extreme aversion to being told that I must deny basic facts, on pain of being accused of bigotry.
"Biological women might care, and that’s understandable, but those who do care aren’t necessarily in the majority"
Way to lose about 30% of the entire electorate. In one go. To hell with those "biological women"
It is mind-boggling
"If a black person wanted me to refer to them as white I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude."
There are no bouncers on lavatories, so access relies on consent of other users. A discrete Trans-woman would barely get a second glance, and that infamous phallus not visible as only out in a cubicle. The problems come from inappropriate behaviour, or fear of it. Similar in some ways to the fear that there used to be of appointing gay teachers or foster parents. I remember when those were very contentious too.
Which is probably another reason why it's hard to recruit people to train as drivers right now. At least with Deliveroo, you need a person to - you know - have the food over.
That is why Gallowgates most caring and thoughtful approach is the best. Rather like the need for something, like religion, when we can’t join in the gaps.
"It's what the voters want us to address!"
99% of floating voters: "The fuck it is...."
As soon as those Japanese sex robots can get up and make a cheese and onion sandwich after the pleasure session, cheap at twice the price IMO.
I’m merely a very low paid public sector worker, it pains me our resident drunken werewolf will order one before me.
So far on the trans issue, the people that I'm aware have faced a backlash have been people who deliberately baited the trans community. Typically with pointed and often factually inaccurate (regardless of whether you acknowledge trans identity) remarks about "obvious biological facts". Typically also with scaremongering about a threat to women, akin to the idea last century that gay people were out to corrupt our children. For example, JK Rowling has done both of those things. That doesn't for a moment excuse the disgusting abuse she and others have received.
However, I agree that there is a danger of an echo-chamber forming around the issue such that people get condemned for innocently use terms in a way that is accurate >99% of the time. That would do a lot of harm, and ultimately it would be trans people who would suffer the most.
Clearly medical professionals have decided that there is a difference between this and the mental disturbances that are involved in the self-hatred of the body that leads to anorexia or bulimia, but I struggle to understand what the distinction is.
I've always viewed those parts of the beauty industry that encourage women to have various parts of their body surgically modified, in order to fit into the latest fashion of a body ideal, as being deeply problematic. I don't see why that view should be different when the person having surgery to fit the female body ideal was born a man. Their choice, of course, but the whole thing seems wildly inconsistent and I can't make any sense of it.
Of course, if I meet someone who introduces themself as Samantha, I'm not going to question them on whether their parents originally called them Samuel. It's none of my business. But if I was working in medical science I'd want to know what the biological sex was of people I was studying, more than the gender identity they carry around in their heads.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
To me there seems to be an inherent contradiction in requiring someone to live for 2 years as their new gender, while denying them access to facilities of that gender. Are they not supposed to go out?
Why do more men than women seem from the polling to have a problem with trans people?
And why do young people of all genders and none seem to not give a tinker's toss about it?
I would add. Why do we hear almost nothing about trans men?
@Foxy suggests an analogy with gay rights 40 or 50 years ago.
I think these are interesting questions to probe.
Suggests to me this is in its very infancy. It damages the Left for now, sure. But like gay rights, the shoe may be on the other foot soon.
Which, as Foxy also notes, may be why the government has done the square root of bugger all thus far.
I also think the whole gender vs biological sex is very constricting in terms of what constitutes a man or a woman. Often these seem stereotyped to the point of caricature. When I used to share a clinic with the urologist who did gender reassignment, none of his patients wore trousers, as if wearing a dress or skirt was the only feminine thing to do. It was a surprisingly middle aged clientele too.
Elective surgery, of course, carries risks. And violence from those who are intolerant of alternative lifestyles can also be a risk. But is the state of believing yourself having a different gender harmful in itself? I think it possibly isn't.
.
"Following a brief explanation of what the current requirements are for someone to legally change their gender (exact wording can be seen in the chart below), by 47% to 28% Britons tended to think that this process should not be made easier. While they are pro-transgender rights on most of the other topics, on this subject Lib Dem and Remain voters, women and 25-49 year olds tend to oppose making the legal process easier."
Britons, young and old, Remain or Leave, left or right, believe you can't just say "I'm a woman" and walk into a female changing room without living as the opposite sex and showing that you mean it, and most expect you to lose your penis
"It is worth noting, however, that Britons do not support such access for those who have not yet undergone gender reassignment surgery. By 41-46% to 26-30% people oppose those who have not physically transitioned being able to use their new gender’s changing rooms. Likewise, 39-41% oppose them being able to use their new gender’s toilets, compared to 31-32% who are in support."
Indeed, I am not sure that my own self identity is defined along gender lines. I see myself take on many descriptors, but wouldn't put "man" on the list. Is that because it doesn't matter? or is it that it is so omnipresent that it doesn't need stating?
However, I see the way in which Rosie Duffield is treated. I see the way in which all my friends on Facebook spit venom at the mention of JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry, and I feel that the only place where I can safely express my lack of understanding is on a pseudonymous blog on political betting.
I start to sound to myself like some washed up old comedian who might have complained a few years ago about not being allowed to make jokes about fags anymore. I do worry that maybe I am becoming one of the middle-aged bigots that I couldn't understand as a youngster. But if my daughter ever told me that she thought she was a man I cannot help but expect that I would believe she had lost her mind. I remember explaining to her as a small child that while she could be whatever she wanted to be when she was an adult, that didn't include being a zebra. Well, she's never going to be a man either. Not really. It doesn't really harm anyone for her to pretend if she would want to, but some things are just the way they are.
All the 13 year old girls think this is fine, and normal. And if she wants to be called Norman, good for her him, and I'm totally OK with respecting that choice.
But I don't really understand why she thinks she's a man. She has no male characteristics that I can divine, and has no male friends. (Not that many 13 year old girls have male friends.)
So, what is the male-ness that she thinks she possesses?
But I don't see that it makes me any less a man. I just feel that society has a very restrictive idea of what being a man entails. And I feel that the justification for transgenderism involves reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than breaking them down. And that makes me feel less free to be who I am.
And, mostly, that's how I view the two sexes. Men and women are both people, and I don't think there's anything fundamentally different between the two sexes, except for what we've been taught, or except for those things that are part of the sexual dimorphism (bell curve for height, muscle mass, body fat, etc and different roles in sexual reproduction).
So I wouldn't see an interest in trainspotting as being a male trait (just a weird trait). I don't see what it would have to do with genitalia at all.
Norman? FFS!!!
I am sure normal service resumes shortly!
https://youtu.be/DTlHkzloNTg
Maybe a radical smashing of gender is the answer? I dunno.
But being trans is very much about breaking down these stereotypes. See also the rise of non-binary. Certainly among the young
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/sexual-health/should-trans-men-have-cervical-screening-tests/
That's one of the reasons I completely accept the validity of trans identity: the alternative is just too implausible. (That doesn't exclude the possibility that an individual may misidentify as trans due to other issues, and indeed some people do regret transitioning.)
Did the resident drunken and shape shifting Cornish pixie pass out into alcoholic stupor, eventually then?
Which is precisely why being asked male/female at every opportunity for no apparent reason isn't necessarily looked on favourably.