NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Asked if he might have to raise wages in order to attract a chef, the Peterborough pub owner pauses for a moment, before admitting “it might come to that.”
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
You should drop that pledge. I think there's a fair chance you'd nail it.
"Source code is a version of computer software which is usually much easier to read and understand than the end version in a finished product, and could be used to reverse engineer parts of the product."
Jesus Fucking Christ, the BBC appear to employ total morons. That is just wrong, wrong and wrong on so many levels.... can't people they employ even google properly anymore?
I bet the government are regretting ever having her anywhere near a SAGE committee.
She can fuck off to North Korea and stay there.
If someone does go to North Korea they may not have much of a choice about staying there forever.
She’s not even an epidemiologist or anything. She’s a behavioural scientist. Quite why/how that qualifies her to make those sorts of pronouncements, who know?
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 20m About bloody time!!! Only took them a year to do it...
NHS told to identify patients actually sick from Covid-19 separately to those testing positive
At last!!! Wonder what has bought this bout of common sense on?
Chortle.
Excellent.
I predict a sharp fall in “cases”!
It will impact the hospitalisation figures not the cases figure. So people in hospital who happen to have Covid will be separated out from those who are there because of it. Resulting in a drop, of whatever size, in the hospitalisation figures. I wonder why?
Theresa May went proper anti-lockdown re international travel while I wasn't watching the Commons...... ....."Last year in 2020 I went to Switzerland in Aug, S Korea in Sep, there was no vaccine, travel was possible; this year there is a vaccine, travel is not possible. I really do not understand the stance the govt is taking"......
"We will not eradicate Covid-19 in the UK; variants will keep on coming – if the govt's position is that we cannot open up travel until there are no new variants elsewhere in the world then we will never be able to travel abroad ever again".....
"The 3rd fact that the govt needs to state much more clearly is that sadly people will die from Covid here in the UK, as 10-20k do every year from flu, and we are falling behind the rest of Europe in our decisions to open up" https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1402992109137784835?s=20
She falls into that rare category of better ex-PM than PM. A sort of British Jimmy Carter.
She appears, like Jeremy Hunt and a few others, to be providing more acute Opposition than the Labour Party.
That's what happens when the opposition is useless.
Blaming Labour for Tory failings now, are we? Nice one.
I think we can. Labour has been a hopeless opposition since the Tories first took power after Brown. It isn't as though there are not decent Labour MPs, it is just that most are languishing on the back benches still. The reason we have Boris Johnson with such a huge majority is Labour ineptitude. The reason we have Boris Johnson is Labour, because if we didn't have Corbyn we would probably not have Johnson. They are two cheeks of the populist arse.
You know I don't buy that narrative, Nigel. I think there was a big POSITIVE vote at GE19 not only for Brexit but for Johnson too. It was the 'BBC' election and in that order. Brexit 1st, "Boris" 2nd, Corbyn 3rd. Although of course these were related. Brexit gave Johnson much of his appeal and cost Corbyn much of his.
Corbyn mismanaged the response of the opposition to Brexit at every level, and pretty much everything else. He was hopeless. The people that supported putting such a dimwit in as LoTO are essentially useful idiots to the supporters of Johnson's populists.
The Con landslide came from the Parliament vs People narrative. That narrative was enabled by Remainer hardcore resistance culminating in the Benn Act. A terrible error, but not primarily Corbyn's.
I think that's right. Corbyn just didn't care that much about our place in the EU. But it is somewhat of a handicap, when you're leader of the opposition, not to care about the dominating issue of the day.
I think he did care. he supported leave, and the UK managed with his strange sort of help to get there. His fans of course, mostly Remainers, were/are so blind and immature that they seemed to have no idea of his actual political record on the subject.
It's basic: it is hard to turn the UK into Venezuela/Cuba/Gaza when constrained by the ECJ, the ECB, FoM and the rules of capitalism.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
"Source code is a version of computer software which is usually much easier to read and understand than the end version in a finished product, and could be used to reverse engineer parts of the product."
Jesus Fucking Christ, the BBC appear to employ total morons. That is just wrong, wrong and wrong on so many levels.... can't people they employ even google properly anymore?
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
A usually sober analyst of these numbers thinks 21st is off now:
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h By Specimen Date, June 7th is already 69% up, & room for more to be added. Can't see Step 4 proceeding on time, tbh. There'd need to have been at least a week of R falling. Ain't gonna happen now.
The point is that at a rate of growth of 69%, even if reopening didn't increase it, by late July we would breach the January peak in the rate of hospital admissions, even allowing for the fact that a smaller percentage of positive tests are resulting in hospitalisation.
Based on the challengeable assumption that there is no ceiling in case numbers...
One thing you can be certain about subbing to Big Doms Substack, you certainly get value for money when it comes to words / £.
'Big Doms Substack' sounds like a genre on Pornhub.
Imagine him doing Cameo....
His fellow Brexiteer Nigel Farage has an Onlyfans.
Could you have not posted a link and warning to that?
Sharing is caring.
You have violated the Visual Morality Statue.
You are sentenced to be confined for 99 years to a single room contains Piers Morgan, Piers Corbyn and a demented lawyer with a baseball bat. The only food will be pineapple pizza. The only entertainment will be access to Conservative Home and Radiohead playing on continuous loop 24/7. May God have mercy on your soul.
Theresa May went proper anti-lockdown re international travel while I wasn't watching the Commons...... ....."Last year in 2020 I went to Switzerland in Aug, S Korea in Sep, there was no vaccine, travel was possible; this year there is a vaccine, travel is not possible. I really do not understand the stance the govt is taking"......
"We will not eradicate Covid-19 in the UK; variants will keep on coming – if the govt's position is that we cannot open up travel until there are no new variants elsewhere in the world then we will never be able to travel abroad ever again".....
"The 3rd fact that the govt needs to state much more clearly is that sadly people will die from Covid here in the UK, as 10-20k do every year from flu, and we are falling behind the rest of Europe in our decisions to open up" https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1402992109137784835?s=20
She falls into that rare category of better ex-PM than PM. A sort of British Jimmy Carter.
She appears, like Jeremy Hunt and a few others, to be providing more acute Opposition than the Labour Party.
That's what happens when the opposition is useless.
Blaming Labour for Tory failings now, are we? Nice one.
I think we can. Labour has been a hopeless opposition since the Tories first took power after Brown. It isn't as though there are not decent Labour MPs, it is just that most are languishing on the back benches still. The reason we have Boris Johnson with such a huge majority is Labour ineptitude. The reason we have Boris Johnson is Labour, because if we didn't have Corbyn we would probably not have Johnson. They are two cheeks of the populist arse.
You know I don't buy that narrative, Nigel. I think there was a big POSITIVE vote at GE19 not only for Brexit but for Johnson too. It was the 'BBC' election and in that order. Brexit 1st, "Boris" 2nd, Corbyn 3rd. Although of course these were related. Brexit gave Johnson much of his appeal and cost Corbyn much of his.
Corbyn mismanaged the response of the opposition to Brexit at every level, and pretty much everything else. He was hopeless. The people that supported putting such a dimwit in as LoTO are essentially useful idiots to the supporters of Johnson's populists.
The Con landslide came from the Parliament vs People narrative. That narrative was enabled by Remainer hardcore resistance culminating in the Benn Act. A terrible error, but not primarily Corbyn's.
I think that's right. Corbyn just didn't care that much about our place in the EU. But it is somewhat of a handicap, when you're leader of the opposition, not to care about the dominating issue of the day.
I think he did care. he supported leave, and the UK managed with his strange sort of help to get there. His fans of course, mostly Remainers, were/are so blind and immature that they seemed to have no idea of his actual political record on the subject.
It's basic: it is hard to turn the UK into Venezuela/Cuba/Gaza when constrained by the ECJ, the ECB, FoM and the rules of capitalism.
Tony Benn was always clear on these matters.
And when it is relatively easy to escape the country...
"Source code is a version of computer software which is usually much easier to read and understand than the end version in a finished product, and could be used to reverse engineer parts of the product."
Jesus Fucking Christ, the BBC appear to employ total morons. That is just wrong, wrong and wrong on so many levels.... can't people they employ even google properly anymore?
{Gell-Mann Amnesia enters the chat}
I don't even know where you would get such a definition...if you google it, you get plenty of concise clear explanations for non-nerds. Its more garbled than a Big Dom SubStack.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
Theresa May went proper anti-lockdown re international travel while I wasn't watching the Commons...... ....."Last year in 2020 I went to Switzerland in Aug, S Korea in Sep, there was no vaccine, travel was possible; this year there is a vaccine, travel is not possible. I really do not understand the stance the govt is taking"......
"We will not eradicate Covid-19 in the UK; variants will keep on coming – if the govt's position is that we cannot open up travel until there are no new variants elsewhere in the world then we will never be able to travel abroad ever again".....
"The 3rd fact that the govt needs to state much more clearly is that sadly people will die from Covid here in the UK, as 10-20k do every year from flu, and we are falling behind the rest of Europe in our decisions to open up" https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1402992109137784835?s=20
She falls into that rare category of better ex-PM than PM. A sort of British Jimmy Carter.
She appears, like Jeremy Hunt and a few others, to be providing more acute Opposition than the Labour Party.
That's what happens when the opposition is useless.
Blaming Labour for Tory failings now, are we? Nice one.
I think we can. Labour has been a hopeless opposition since the Tories first took power after Brown. It isn't as though there are not decent Labour MPs, it is just that most are languishing on the back benches still. The reason we have Boris Johnson with such a huge majority is Labour ineptitude. The reason we have Boris Johnson is Labour, because if we didn't have Corbyn we would probably not have Johnson. They are two cheeks of the populist arse.
You know I don't buy that narrative, Nigel. I think there was a big POSITIVE vote at GE19 not only for Brexit but for Johnson too. It was the 'BBC' election and in that order. Brexit 1st, "Boris" 2nd, Corbyn 3rd. Although of course these were related. Brexit gave Johnson much of his appeal and cost Corbyn much of his.
Corbyn mismanaged the response of the opposition to Brexit at every level, and pretty much everything else. He was hopeless. The people that supported putting such a dimwit in as LoTO are essentially useful idiots to the supporters of Johnson's populists.
The Con landslide came from the Parliament vs People narrative. That narrative was enabled by Remainer hardcore resistance culminating in the Benn Act. A terrible error, but not primarily Corbyn's.
I think that's right. Corbyn just didn't care that much about our place in the EU. But it is somewhat of a handicap, when you're leader of the opposition, not to care about the dominating issue of the day.
I think he did care. he supported leave, and the UK managed with his strange sort of help to get there. His fans of course, mostly Remainers, were/are so blind and immature that they seemed to have no idea of his actual political record on the subject.
It's basic: it is hard to turn the UK into Venezuela/Cuba/Gaza when constrained by the ECJ, the ECB, FoM and the rules of capitalism.
Tony Benn was always clear on these matters.
Quite - and Leave was part and parcel of the 1980s policies that he (Corbyn) sees as the One True Way. Leaving the EEC and NATO was always a package with those types.
“ PM says dealing with Biden is like a ‘breath of fresh air’ and says instead of dispute over NI there was ‘complete harmony’ over need to get it sorted out”
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
Are they basically cuddly anarchists?
Depends if you consider Yanis Varoufakis cuddly or not.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
“ PM says dealing with Biden is like a ‘breath of fresh air’ and says instead of dispute over NI there was ‘complete harmony’ over need to get it sorted out”
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Looking at that photo I have a confession to make - I shook someone's hand last week. It was a pavlovian reaction, they extended their hand toward me and my body took over.
“ PM says dealing with Biden is like a ‘breath of fresh air’ and says instead of dispute over NI there was ‘complete harmony’ over need to get it sorted out”
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
Is their motto "down with that sort of thing...careful now"?
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Brutal analysis for the woke brigade. But probably an illegal opinion. Neee Naw Neee Naw
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong".
It's about conflicting rights and where society wants to draw the line.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
Vaccination rates frankly a bit disappointing recently. Total daily doses hovering about half a million. Even "bumper" weeks at the end of May didn't get the seven-day average above 600,000 seen in March.
One thing you can be certain about subbing to Big Doms Substack, you certainly get value for money when it comes to words / £.
'Big Doms Substack' sounds like a genre on Pornhub.
Imagine him doing Cameo....
His fellow Brexiteer Nigel Farage has an Onlyfans.
Could you have not posted a link and warning to that?
I have often wondered how Farage could make himself look even more of a twat. Now I know. Someone should tell him to go back to the faux upper-class-twit-of-the-year look.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
My favourite political party name is the Association of Combatant Clerics of Iran.
Not to be confused with the Combatant Clergy Association, which isn't a political party in the strictest sense but has considerable political influence.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
It’s a toxic debate and that’s all I have to say.
It’s characteristic of these kind of culture war debates that each side brings up the absolute worst / most extreme positions taken by a minority of the other side & uses it as a stick to frighten their own side into taking the more extreme versions of their own in turn.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
The fact that anti-woke opinions are now literally illegal may also be a problem here.
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
My favourite political party name is the Association of Combatant Clerics of Iran.
Not to be confused with the Combatant Clergy Association, which isn't a political party in the strictest sense but has considerable political influence.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
But, I'm right about everything! That's nuts
I was right about Covid, I'm right about Lab Leak, I'm right about Woke and I am right to be agitated about "aliens", because something is happening, even if it ain't ET
Tsk
This is an interesting example below. I don't like to pick on Gardenwalker coz he's actually one of the smarter commenters on here, but this is illustrative
I said the Anglo-Saxons were cancelled. His reply:
"It’s not clear what this means, is it supposed to be woke?
Perhaps historians have realised that there were few Angles and no Saxons, so the name is simply inaccurate, rather than being (as you seem to suggest) a label so hideously drenched in whiteness it can no longer be voiced without oral disinfectant."
In the time it took him to write that he could have gone on Google, typed just "Anglo Saxon" plus "word" or "term" or "problematic" and he'd have found a hundred hits saying Yes, it's been cancelled by Woke because *race*. And he'd have had time left over for a sobering coffee
Yet he didn't do this. He made a little sneering joke, and left it at that. If I hadn't nobly taken the time to educate him, he'd still be ignorant. And it's this wilful ignorance, this blinkered refusal to see, which irritates
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
My favourite political party name is the Association of Combatant Clerics of Iran.
Not to be confused with the Combatant Clergy Association, which isn't a political party in the strictest sense but has considerable political influence.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
But, I'm right about everything! That's nuts
I was right about Covid, I'm right about Lab Leak, I'm right about Woke and I am right to be agitated about "aliens", because something is happening, even if it ain't ET
Tsk
This is an interesting example below. I don't like to pick on Gardenwalker coz he's actually one of the smarter commenters on here, but this is illustrative
I said the Anglo-Saxons were cancelled. His reply:
"It’s not clear what this means, is it supposed to be woke?
Perhaps historians have realised that there were few Angles and no Saxons, so the name is simply inaccurate, rather than being (as you seem to suggest) a label so hideously drenched in whiteness it can no longer be voiced without oral disinfectant."
In the time it took him to write that he could have gone on Google, typed just "Anglo Saxon" plus "word" or "term" or "problematic" and he'd have found a hundred hits saying Yes, it's been cancelled by Woke because *race*. And he'd have had time left over for a sobering coffee
Yet he didn't do this. He made a little sneering joke, and left it at that. If I hadn't nobly taken the time to educate him, he'd still be ignorant. And it's this wilful ignorance, this blinkered refusal to see, which irritates
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
My favourite political party name is the Association of Combatant Clerics of Iran.
Not to be confused with the Combatant Clergy Association, which isn't a political party in the strictest sense but has considerable political influence.
Always makes me chuckle there is the Communist Party of Canada and their sworn enemies the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Canada....
Who is a common or garden commie supposed to vote for....
Leftist sectarianism has been around forever. Yawn.
The really innovative Canuck poltical movement, is (or was) the Edible Ballot Society, group of anarchists urging their fellow Great White Northers to eat their election ballots as alternative to voting.
Johnson does look like he’s lost some weight and found a suit to fit
Mrs Stodge's reaction on seeing the picture of the Johnsons and the Bidens on the beach at Carbis Bay:
"What idiot wears a suit on a beach? He looks ridiculous!"
I then pointed out I had stood on that very beach in the past
"Did you wear a suit?", queried Mrs Stodge.
"No, but I wasn't meeting the President of the United States either" was all I could come up with on the spur of the moment.
I played rugby for my university, and we all wore blazers etc on the way to games. I will never forget a gormless fresher guffawing to his gormless mates about ‘what dickhead wears a blazer to university’. He was very fresh and had no idea I was a front row in the university 1st team off to represent the university...
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
The fact that anti-woke opinions are now literally illegal may also be a problem here.
Which is why it needs to be fought. Woke think is madness.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
It’s a toxic debate and that’s all I have to say.
It’s characteristic of these kind of culture war debates that each side brings up the absolute worst / most extreme positions taken by a minority of the other side & uses it as a stick to frighten their own side into taking the more extreme versions of their own in turn.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
It’s a toxic debate and that’s all I have to say.
It’s characteristic of these kind of culture war debates that each side brings up the absolute worst / most extreme positions taken by a minority of the other side & uses it as a stick to frighten their own side into taking the more extreme versions of their own in turn.
Thus the wheels of the culture war turn.
Another reason extremes usually win out in successful revolutions
A big swing back to the Union yet the irony is the victorious CDU leader in Saxony-Anhalt election is a fierce critic of the CDU Spitzenkandidat Laschet having backed Soder and the Saxony result was indicative of what the polls were suggesting would happen if the CDU had chosen Soder.
We'll have to see if this is a clear change or a temporary blip in the coming weeks.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
And if the offender is endangered by other prisoners, then isolate them.
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
All about the penis then for you. Ok.
Reasoning being no penis = no rape threat to other inmates?
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
One thing that a decadent society will never fail to master is to take something so simple that a child could understand it and instead wrap it up in a maze of counter-intuitive, irrational pseudo-intellectualization, its members priding themselves on the brilliance of their ingenuity the further from essential reason they depart...
Pres. Biden says "the U.S. will purchase half a billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to donate to nearly 100 nations that are in dire need in the fight against this pandemic."
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
It’s a toxic debate and that’s all I have to say.
What do you mean by "pro trans"?
They all need to get a life and leave people to get on with theirs instead of incessant whining. A good days work is what most of them need rather than woke mince.
Comments
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57431987
"Source code is a version of computer software which is usually much easier to read and understand than the end version in a finished product, and could be used to reverse engineer parts of the product."
Jesus Fucking Christ, the BBC appear to employ total morons. That is just wrong, wrong and wrong on so many levels.... can't people they employ even google properly anymore?
It's basic: it is hard to turn the UK into Venezuela/Cuba/Gaza when constrained by the ECJ, the ECB, FoM and the rules of capitalism.
Tony Benn was always clear on these matters.
Some of us were thinking about dinner.
You are sentenced to be confined for 99 years to a single room contains Piers Morgan, Piers Corbyn and a demented lawyer with a baseball bat. The only food will be pineapple pizza. The only entertainment will be access to Conservative Home and Radiohead playing on continuous loop 24/7. May God have mercy on your soul.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1403036969966485509
One of the press hotels in Cornwall have a covid outbreak
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1403037362670743559?s=20
Yes- men's prison
No - women's prison
It's about conflicting rights and where society wants to draw the line.
You can't prove it one way or the other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEqr5cIqYsg
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1403041060817977350?s=20
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Combatant_Clerics
Not to be confused with the Combatant Clergy Association, which isn't a political party in the strictest sense but has considerable political influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Clergy_Association
"It's gorgeous. I don't want to go home."
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1403034906108776448?s=21
I wonder how many of these boys are achingly right-on with their pronouns, and yet they do this - which I never did:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-57411363
Thus the wheels of the culture war turn.
Who is a common or garden commie supposed to vote for....
"What idiot wears a suit on a beach? He looks ridiculous!"
I then pointed out I had stood on that very beach in the past
"Did you wear a suit?", queried Mrs Stodge.
"No, but I wasn't meeting the President of the United States either" was all I could come up with on the spur of the moment.
I was right about Covid, I'm right about Lab Leak, I'm right about Woke and I am right to be agitated about "aliens", because something is happening, even if it ain't ET
Tsk
This is an interesting example below. I don't like to pick on Gardenwalker coz he's actually one of the smarter commenters on here, but this is illustrative
I said the Anglo-Saxons were cancelled. His reply:
"It’s not clear what this means, is it supposed to be woke?
Perhaps historians have realised that there were few Angles and no Saxons, so the name is simply inaccurate, rather than being (as you seem to suggest) a label so hideously drenched in whiteness it can no longer be voiced without oral disinfectant."
In the time it took him to write that he could have gone on Google, typed just "Anglo Saxon" plus "word" or "term" or "problematic" and he'd have found a hundred hits saying Yes, it's been cancelled by Woke because *race*. And he'd have had time left over for a sobering coffee
Yet he didn't do this. He made a little sneering joke, and left it at that. If I hadn't nobly taken the time to educate him, he'd still be ignorant. And it's this wilful ignorance, this blinkered refusal to see, which irritates
WI over 100 2.00 £43.61 £43.61
Yo win some you lose some
The really innovative Canuck poltical movement, is (or was) the Edible Ballot Society, group of anarchists urging their fellow Great White Northers to eat their election ballots as alternative to voting.
At one point they even issued a cook book!
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1403042246119804931?s=21
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
After the CDU's huge win in the Saxony-Anhalt election last week, the polls have shifted:
The latest Infratest poll (changes from last poll):
CDU/CSU-EPP: 28% (+4)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 20% (-5)
SPD-S&D: 14% (-1)
FDP-RE: 12%
AfD-ID: 12% (+1)
LINKE-LEFT: 7%
A big swing back to the Union yet the irony is the victorious CDU leader in Saxony-Anhalt election is a fierce critic of the CDU Spitzenkandidat Laschet having backed Soder and the Saxony result was indicative of what the polls were suggesting would happen if the CDU had chosen Soder.
We'll have to see if this is a clear change or a temporary blip in the coming weeks.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1403033529047519237?s=20
First reply
worthreading.....Reasoning being no penis = no rape threat to other inmates?
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Pres. Biden says "the U.S. will purchase half a billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to donate to nearly 100 nations that are in dire need in the fight against this pandemic."
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1403047170413142018?s=20