For the first time since July Johnson is back on top in YouGov’s “Best PM” ratings – politicalbettin

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

eek said:

Going back to the culture wars

It seems that the Government's proposal are plagiarized from elsewhere
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1361719947156725764

Isn't plagiarizing an instant fail?

The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.

Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.

Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.

Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.

The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.

Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.

Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.

That would be unacceptable to me.

The Government does not have a right to determine how others exercise their speech rights.

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wishes you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a changing room in front of your seven year old daughter?

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

No. I specifically said no surgery whatsoever, didn't I?

Someone who is partway through the surgery process is the worst possible scenario. Its not safe to put them in a mens prison because they've already got the breasts etc and its not possible to put them in the ladies prison as they still have the penis.

In that scenario I think the only viable safe alternative would probably put them in protective solitary confinement until their surgery is complete. If they don't want to go into protective solitary confinement then I would put them in a men's prison to protect the women, but the protective solitary should be preferred I would have thought.

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

It will protect the woman in a womans prison from rape, perhaps you think thats not worthwhile

I literally said on the previous page that biological women should not be imprisoned with biological men FFS.

Well you didn't advocate trans prisons so I could only assume you wanted them in womens prisons

SouthamObserver said:

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

eek said:

Going back to the culture wars

It seems that the Government's proposal are plagiarized from elsewhere
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1361719947156725764

Isn't plagiarizing an instant fail?

The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.

To be fair, Mr Rushdie is a multi-state citizen. And was protected by the UK government. Despite some arguing that he shouldn't be. Quite a few on the Left, IIRC

he was a UK citizen and taxpayer when given the protection he had every right to. I don't remember anyone on the left saying he shouldn't have got it - but it was a long time ago. Anyone who did was plainly wrong.

Shirley Williams and Roy Hattersley (for example) were quite keen that that the UK government shouldn't be so "offensive" in their protection of Rushdie.

Hattersley in particular wanted to UK government to withdraw all protests against the bounty on his head by Iran and for Rushdie to withdraw the book.

Rushdie's protection was an extremely unusual and very expensive undertaking. IIRC it cost more than protecting the Northern Ireland Sec., for a while.

Well, Hattersley and Williams were wrong. Rushdie - a British citizen - had every right to the protection he was given and to write the book in the first place. The protection was, of course, unusual. The supreme leader of Iran had not threatened any other UK citizen in the same way.

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

No. I specifically said no surgery whatsoever, didn't I?

Someone who is partway through the surgery process is the worst possible scenario. Its not safe to put them in a mens prison because they've already got the breasts etc and its not possible to put them in the ladies prison as they still have the penis.

In that scenario I think the only viable safe alternative would probably put them in protective solitary confinement until their surgery is complete. If they don't want to go into protective solitary confinement then I would put them in a men's prison to protect the women, but the protective solitary should be preferred I would have thought.

You actually originally said that the test should be whether they had a penis or not.

What about a biological man who has been taking tons of hormones and is therefore very feminine?

Your selection is too crude. Why cant we just have 1 wing in 1 prison specially for trans men and another 1 wing in 1 prison specially for trans women? Problem solved.

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

It will protect the woman in a womans prison from rape, perhaps you think thats not worthwhile

I literally said on the previous page that biological women should not be imprisoned with biological men FFS.

Well you didn't advocate trans prisons so I could only assume you wanted them in womens prisons

Yes I did. I said there needs to be a third way. That is obviously some sort of segregation from both prison populations which I don’t believe is unreasonable as trans people of both sexes are going to be uniquely vulnerable.

Nope went through the quotes you didnt advocate any third way you merely said men who had boobs shouldnt be in a mans prison. Maybe I missed it care to quote from the thread where you advocated a third way. By thread I mean the quotes in this post?

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Foxy said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not really. Prisoners are often isolated from other prisoners because they are a risk, or at risk to others. Segregation in prisons for such reasons is policy.

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not really. Prisoners are often isolated from other prisoners because they are a risk, or at risk to others. Segregation in prisons for such reasons is policy.

Sure, that's based on an individualised risk assessment, or alternatively as a response to bad behaviour. Implementing such a policy based on a person's group identity is, if not illegal, then pretty much the opposite of what proponents of such a policy would want.

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

A lot of prisoners are "prison Gay"

https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/26/sexual-assault-in-prison-if-i-get-sent-to-jail-will-i-be-raped-6596399/

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

eek said:

Going back to the culture wars

It seems that the Government's proposal are plagiarized from elsewhere
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1361719947156725764

Isn't plagiarizing an instant fail?

The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.

To be fair, Mr Rushdie is a multi-state citizen. And was protected by the UK government. Despite some arguing that he shouldn't be. Quite a few on the Left, IIRC

he was a UK citizen and taxpayer when given the protection he had every right to. I don't remember anyone on the left saying he shouldn't have got it - but it was a long time ago. Anyone who did was plainly wrong.

Shirley Williams and Roy Hattersley (for example) were quite keen that that the UK government shouldn't be so "offensive" in their protection of Rushdie.

Hattersley in particular wanted to UK government to withdraw all protests against the bounty on his head by Iran and for Rushdie to withdraw the book.

Rushdie's protection was an extremely unusual and very expensive undertaking. IIRC it cost more than protecting the Northern Ireland Sec., for a while.

Well, Hattersley and Williams were wrong. Rushdie - a British citizen - had every right to the protection he was given and to write the book in the first place. The protection was, of course, unusual. The supreme leader of Iran had not threatened any other UK citizen in the same way.

Exactly. As a matter of taste, I don't like authors writing books satirising other people's religions, but governments have a duty to protect their citizens from murder, regardless of the rights and wrongs, and also their freedom of expression. If it's sometimes expensive, so be it.

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

A lot of prisoners are "prison Gay"

https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/26/sexual-assault-in-prison-if-i-get-sent-to-jail-will-i-be-raped-6596399/

Maybe but the point I was making is why is it ok to mix gay and hetero men but not biological men who belive they are woman? I would suspect in a male prison that "prison gay" probably still means the most raped group will be heterosexual men

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1361771520377434120?s=19

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

Charles said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

No. I specifically said no surgery whatsoever, didn't I?

Someone who is partway through the surgery process is the worst possible scenario. Its not safe to put them in a mens prison because they've already got the breasts etc and its not possible to put them in the ladies prison as they still have the penis.

In that scenario I think the only viable safe alternative would probably put them in protective solitary confinement until their surgery is complete. If they don't want to go into protective solitary confinement then I would put them in a men's prison to protect the women, but the protective solitary should be preferred I would have thought.

You actually originally said that the test should be whether they had a penis or not.

What about a biological man who has been taking tons of hormones and is therefore very feminine?

Your selection is too crude. Why cant we just have 1 wing in 1 prison specially for trans men and another 1 wing in 1 prison specially for trans women? Problem solved.

Given the likely numbers doesn’t this reduce to solitary?

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

isam said:

isam said:

"Opinium were, of course, the most accurate pollster etc etc"

Ooer

For all pollster's

isam said:

isam said:

"Opinium were, of course, the most accurate pollster etc etc"

Ooer

For all pollsters

isam said:

isam said:

isam said:

"Opinium were, of course, the most accurate pollster etc etc"

Ooer

For all pollsters

Do LotO's ever start off with good Positive and NS numbers as Sir Keir did, lose them in this way, then recover to become PM?

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

We were talking rape not assault, and "prison gay" not withstanding I would make the assumption that gay men are more interested in men than heterosexual men....doesn't seem that unlikely an assumption Then given there are more heterosexual men in prison than gay men it further follows that they are likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Note I am not claiming gay men are inherently rapists. Merely saying more likely for a gay rapist to find what he is looking for

Pulpstar said:

There are 117 prisons in the UK. ~ 0.5% of the population is trans or thereabouts. Simply assign one of the prisons' wings to be the "trans prison" ?

isam said:

isam said:

isam said:

isam said:

"Opinium were, of course, the most accurate pollster etc etc"

Ooer

For all pollsters

Do LotO's ever start off with good Positive and NS numbers as Sir Keir did, lose them in this way, then recover to become PM?

This was EdM's polls at the same stage of his leadership Sir Keir is at now

isam said:

"Opinium were, of course, the most accurate pollster etc etc"

Ooer

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

We were talking rape not assault, and "prison gay" not withstanding I would make the assumption that gay men are more interested in men than heterosexual men....doesn't seem that unlikely an assumption Then given there are more heterosexual men in prison than gay men it further follows that they are likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Note I am not claiming gay men are inherently rapists. Merely saying more likely for a gay rapist to find what he is looking for

Rape isn't about sex it is about power. Gay men may be more likely to have consensual relationships in a prison - but when it comes to rape why would a heterosexual man be more likely to be the victim than a homosexual?

The victim is about who gets targetted not who the attacker is and I'd have thought homosexuals would be more likely to be targetted.

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

We were talking rape not assault, and "prison gay" not withstanding I would make the assumption that gay men are more interested in men than heterosexual men....doesn't seem that unlikely an assumption Then given there are more heterosexual men in prison than gay men it further follows that they are likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Note I am not claiming gay men are inherently rapists. Merely saying more likely for a gay rapist to find what he is looking for

Rape isn't about sex it is about power. Gay men may be more likely to have consensual relationships in a prison - but when it comes to rape why would a heterosexual man be more likely to be the victim than a homosexual?

The victim is about who gets targetted not who the attacker is and I'd have thought homosexuals would be more likely to be targetted.

Can you cite why? I have met plenty of assertive homosexuals and a lot of submissive style heterosexuals.....being a victim mentality isnt particulary prescribed by gender or sexuality

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

We were talking rape not assault, and "prison gay" not withstanding I would make the assumption that gay men are more interested in men than heterosexual men....doesn't seem that unlikely an assumption Then given there are more heterosexual men in prison than gay men it further follows that they are likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Note I am not claiming gay men are inherently rapists. Merely saying more likely for a gay rapist to find what he is looking for

Rape isn't about sex it is about power. Gay men may be more likely to have consensual relationships in a prison - but when it comes to rape why would a heterosexual man be more likely to be the victim than a homosexual?

The victim is about who gets targetted not who the attacker is and I'd have thought homosexuals would be more likely to be targetted.

"The rape is about power not sex" thing is a feminist theory from the 1970s which has now become universally accepted, yet is somewhat questionable.

In some situations it is obviously true: e.g. the brutal Red Army rapes of German women, in 1945, were very often about power - indeed power plus revenge.

However, the average age of a female rape victim in the UK is 16-24, with a peak around 19-21, which also coincides with peak fertility (and therefore attractiveness) which suggests sexual desire (in a very ugly form) also has a role to play.

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

God, the trans argument is so WEIRD.

For a start, it affects about 0.4% of the population. Less than one in two hundred. There are twice as many players of badminton.

And yet the argument is so violent, poisonous, and salient. Quite bizarre.

It should also be a source of national pride. Several western countries are now roiled by this venomous debate, but it all started here in the UK, and still derives a lot of energy from its British sources.

World beating!

It's also been enough to get JK Rowling blacklisted for views that are entirely unobjectionable.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

We were talking rape not assault, and "prison gay" not withstanding I would make the assumption that gay men are more interested in men than heterosexual men....doesn't seem that unlikely an assumption Then given there are more heterosexual men in prison than gay men it further follows that they are likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Note I am not claiming gay men are inherently rapists. Merely saying more likely for a gay rapist to find what he is looking for

Rape isn't about sex it is about power. Gay men may be more likely to have consensual relationships in a prison - but when it comes to rape why would a heterosexual man be more likely to be the victim than a homosexual?

The victim is about who gets targetted not who the attacker is and I'd have thought homosexuals would be more likely to be targetted.

"The rape is about power not sex" thing is a feminist theory from the 1970s which has now become universally accepted, yet is somewhat questionable.

In some situations it is obviously true: e.g. the brutal Red Army rapes of German women, in 1945, were very often about power - indeed power plus revenge.

However, the average age of a female rape victim in the UK is 16-24, with a peak around 19-21, which also coincides with peak fertility (and therefore attractiveness) which suggests sexual desire (in a very ugly form) also has a role to play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

We were talking rape not assault, and "prison gay" not withstanding I would make the assumption that gay men are more interested in men than heterosexual men....doesn't seem that unlikely an assumption Then given there are more heterosexual men in prison than gay men it further follows that they are likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Note I am not claiming gay men are inherently rapists. Merely saying more likely for a gay rapist to find what he is looking for

Rape isn't about sex it is about power. Gay men may be more likely to have consensual relationships in a prison - but when it comes to rape why would a heterosexual man be more likely to be the victim than a homosexual?

The victim is about who gets targetted not who the attacker is and I'd have thought homosexuals would be more likely to be targetted.

Can you cite why? I have met plenty of assertive homosexuals and a lot of submissive style heterosexuals.....being a victim mentality isnt particulary prescribed by gender or sexuality

Since rape is about assault its not about assertive or submissive, those aren't the factors.

Since people are more likely to have anti-gay feelings they're probably more likely to rape a gay person as they're marked out more as targets. 'Prison gays' are more likely to be homophobes surely than hating or targetting heterosexuals?

Well that is an assumption you are making I would want to see credible studies to back it up. The rape is power is more accepted as a theory in which case its as I said the strong preying on the weak then just like at school that one most likely to get beaten up on the way home is still the most likely target

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.

So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.

It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.

What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.

My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.

The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.

However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".

What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?

I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.

That sounds expensive.

What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?

Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.

Surely there must be a third way.

I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.

If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.

We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.

To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.

You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?

I suspect penetrative rape is much more common in male prisons, indeed often gleefully wished on prisoners by jokes about dropping the soap in the shower etc.

However we have already had issues with self identifying females put in womens prison with their parts in tact it didnt end well

Are you equally keen to protect male prisoners from penetrative rape in male prisons? If so, how do you think that should be done?

Again. If there is a suggestion to make a situation better, then I'm sure we're all for it. The question is about taking a situation and making it worse on purpose.

Not saying this is how it should be just a thought experiment,
would people have supported a movement that heterosexual men shouldnt be in prison with homosexual ones due to the risk of penetrative sex?

So you are not bothered if a homosexual is raped? And you assume the rapist is homosexual?

I didnt say that I was merely asking why homosexual and heterosexual prisoners were not separated. I would assume a heterosexual male is more likely to be raped than a homosexual so not sure how you even got to "you are not bothered if a homosexual got raped"

Why would you assume a heterosexual is more likely to be assaulted than a homosexual?

We were talking rape not assault, and "prison gay" not withstanding I would make the assumption that gay men are more interested in men than heterosexual men....doesn't seem that unlikely an assumption Then given there are more heterosexual men in prison than gay men it further follows that they are likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Note I am not claiming gay men are inherently rapists. Merely saying more likely for a gay rapist to find what he is looking for

Rape isn't about sex it is about power. Gay men may be more likely to have consensual relationships in a prison - but when it comes to rape why would a heterosexual man be more likely to be the victim than a homosexual?

The victim is about who gets targetted not who the attacker is and I'd have thought homosexuals would be more likely to be targetted.

"The rape is about power not sex" thing is a feminist theory from the 1970s which has now become universally accepted, yet is somewhat questionable.

In some situations it is obviously true: e.g. the brutal Red Army rapes of German women, in 1945, were very often about power - indeed power plus revenge.

However, the average age of a female rape victim in the UK is 16-24, with a peak around 19-21, which also coincides with peak fertility (and therefore attractiveness) which suggests sexual desire (in a very ugly form) also has a role to play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1361788013504774144

glw said:

rcs1000 said:

It's also been enough to get JK Rowling blacklisted for views that are entirely unobjectionable.

I read some comments on a news article about a feminist organisation that had made a submission to a HoC committee. I don't even recall what the issue was, but whatever the organisation haid said got them labbelled in the comments as TERFs, and rapidly moved on to fascists, Nazis, and essentially genocidal, with not the slightest hint that the accusations might be exaggerated for effect. I genuinely can't think of another area of public discourse which seems to provoke such extreme anger at the drop of a hat. If you aren't 100% in agreement with the transgender activists they really, really hate you.

stodge said:

Stuartinromford said:

Dunno about the starting points, but Thatcher and Cameron both went net negative before turning things round and winning;

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/opposition-party-leaders-ipsos-mori-satisfaction-ratings-1977-2019

Basically, as a people, we're grumpy and hard to please.

I prefer to start from two maxims - "Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them" and "Events, dear boy, Events".

There are clear reasons for most changes of Government but I would suggest two key points - one, the sense the Government is not in control of events and two, the internal political collapse of the governing party.

One or both can be used to justify the changes in 1945, 1951, 1964, 1970 (to an extent), Feb 74, 1979, 1997 and 2010.

It's far too early to suggest the current Government is in either category though one could argue elements of the initial Covid response last spring suggested moments when events seemed to be in control rather than the Government.

We are three years from a GE - a lot has happened in the first third of this administration, we still have two thirds to go. Leadership change is often the way to address the internal political situation but it doesn't always work - the sense of loss of control is much harder to get back once it is in the public perception.

Floater said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1361788013504774144

I heard today at least one cruise line was going down that route

Leon said:

justin124 said:

Black_Rook said:

justin124 said:

In the previous thread it was suggested that Comres has No back leading in Scotland 52% - 48%. On close inspection, however, the figures appear to relate to Feb 2020 - not Feb 2021. Why attach significance to a poll now a year old? Or has there been a typo error?

I'm assuming it's an error, because I went to the company's website to check. They're running a monthly tracker on behalf of The Scotsman, the most recent edition of which was issued five days ago and gave a split of Yes 47, No 42, DK 10. This is something of a narrowing relative to the comparable figures for December and January, but still shows a pro-independence lead.

So the typo relates to the headline poll figures - rather than the date given?

No, he typed the year wrong. He believes that with consistent weighting, No now has a narrow lead

Btw I’ve no idea if he’s right - just repeating his tweet

https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1361601069730643968?s=21

Charles said:

Leon said:

justin124 said:

Black_Rook said:

justin124 said:

In the previous thread it was suggested that Comres has No back leading in Scotland 52% - 48%. On close inspection, however, the figures appear to relate to Feb 2020 - not Feb 2021. Why attach significance to a poll now a year old? Or has there been a typo error?

I'm assuming it's an error, because I went to the company's website to check. They're running a monthly tracker on behalf of The Scotsman, the most recent edition of which was issued five days ago and gave a split of Yes 47, No 42, DK 10. This is something of a narrowing relative to the comparable figures for December and January, but still shows a pro-independence lead.

So the typo relates to the headline poll figures - rather than the date given?

No, he typed the year wrong. He believes that with consistent weighting, No now has a narrow lead

Btw I’ve no idea if he’s right - just repeating his tweet

https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1361601069730643968?s=21

Is ScotFax serious or just “unskewing” the polls?

Floater said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1361788013504774144

I heard today at least one cruise line was going down that route

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

God, the trans argument is so WEIRD.

For a start, it affects about 0.4% of the population. Less than one in two hundred. There are twice as many players of badminton.

And yet the argument is so violent, poisonous, and salient. Quite bizarre.

It should also be a source of national pride. Several western countries are now roiled by this venomous debate, but it all started here in the UK, and still derives a lot of energy from its British sources.

World beating!

It's also been enough to get JK Rowling blacklisted for views that are entirely unobjectionable.

In what fucking planet is JK Rowling blacklisted?

What platform is she barred from?

Can she no longer publish books? Do papers no longer give her interviews?

Leon said:

justin124 said:

Black_Rook said:

justin124 said:

In the previous thread it was suggested that Comres has No back leading in Scotland 52% - 48%. On close inspection, however, the figures appear to relate to Feb 2020 - not Feb 2021. Why attach significance to a poll now a year old? Or has there been a typo error?

I'm assuming it's an error, because I went to the company's website to check. They're running a monthly tracker on behalf of The Scotsman, the most recent edition of which was issued five days ago and gave a split of Yes 47, No 42, DK 10. This is something of a narrowing relative to the comparable figures for December and January, but still shows a pro-independence lead.

So the typo relates to the headline poll figures - rather than the date given?

No, he typed the year wrong. He believes that with consistent weighting, No now has a narrow lead

Btw I’ve no idea if he’s right - just repeating his tweet

https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1361601069730643968?s=21

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

justin124 said:

Black_Rook said:

justin124 said:

In the previous thread it was suggested that Comres has No back leading in Scotland 52% - 48%. On close inspection, however, the figures appear to relate to Feb 2020 - not Feb 2021. Why attach significance to a poll now a year old? Or has there been a typo error?

I'm assuming it's an error, because I went to the company's website to check. They're running a monthly tracker on behalf of The Scotsman, the most recent edition of which was issued five days ago and gave a split of Yes 47, No 42, DK 10. This is something of a narrowing relative to the comparable figures for December and January, but still shows a pro-independence lead.

So the typo relates to the headline poll figures - rather than the date given?

No, he typed the year wrong. He believes that with consistent weighting, No now has a narrow lead

Btw I’ve no idea if he’s right - just repeating his tweet

https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1361601069730643968?s=21

It is utter bullshit by ScotFax my source at ComRes tells me.

ScotFax is applying the unweighted numbers, see page 13.

https://2sjjwunnql41ia7ki31qqub1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Final_P009974-Scotland-Poll-20210212_Private.pdf