Could Raab be in trouble at Esher and Walton? – politicalbetting.com

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nadine Dorries into no 10

Daveyboy1961 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky confirmed Liz Truss as Foreign Secretary

Next leader?

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

Stocky said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Dorries you mean? Seriously?

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Dorries you mean? Seriously?

Culture?

Anabobazina said:

I think @Casino_Royale is right to be bearish on Jacinda's future prospects, actually.

She won the election, as he implies, during a perfect storm for her: zero covid cases, no vaccines anywhere and a sharp contrast with the Old Country (to which NZ has a massive inferiority complex): No restrictions in Auckland. London shut.

Now, the situation is the exact opposite. Extreme restrictions in Auckland (and the ever-present and immediate hair-trigger threat of them even when unlocked, because of NZ's utterly dire vaccination rates). London free.

What is her next move? At some point she has to open the borders (and thus accept the cases that she has made a huge show of 'eliminating') because NZ will ultimately collapse economically without international visitors.

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Nigelb said:

I note Boris has knifed his prominent cabinet leadership supporters. TBF, a couple of them richly deserved it (Buckland a bit less so), but there is an element of boat burning about this.
Should the economy turn really sticky, there might be a reshuffle of PM ahead of the next election ?

Sean_F said:

AlistairM said:

Still large falls in case numbers although not quite as high as the last few days.

UK: 38,975 -> 30,597 (-21.5%)
England: 29,286 -> 22,078 (-24.6%)
Scotland: 5,810 -> 4,917 (-15.3%)
NI: 1,210 -> 1,304 (+7.8%)
Wales: 2,669 -> 2,298 (-13.9%)

A big drop in hospital admissions W o W, and English data suggests this will continue.

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Dorries you mean? Seriously?

Culture?

That's what Bolton has just suggested.

eek said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

Stark_Dawning said:

bigjohnowls said:

BBC News - "Doubts over Patel"

That would be a biggie. She's the darling of The Daily Express.

Careful what you wish for. If Patel gets replaced, it’ll be because she’s failed to stop the boats - and that’s what will be top of the inbox for the new HS.

I'd love it to be Gove.

The rumour is Gove to “Minister for levelling-up the North”.

Nice way to put Gove and Rishi on a collision course - going to be interesting to see the end result of the fight they will end up having.

eek said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

Stark_Dawning said:

bigjohnowls said:

BBC News - "Doubts over Patel"

That would be a biggie. She's the darling of The Daily Express.

Careful what you wish for. If Patel gets replaced, it’ll be because she’s failed to stop the boats - and that’s what will be top of the inbox for the new HS.

I'd love it to be Gove.

The rumour is Gove to “Minister for levelling-up the North”.

Nice way to put Gove and Rishi on a collision course - going to be interesting to see the end result of the fight they will end up having.

OldKingCole said:

MrEd said:

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Dorries you mean? Seriously?

Culture?

That's what Bolton has just suggested.

@kinabalu will have a heart attack

Could be worse. Imagine the reaction from Y Doethr and Fysics if Dorries gets education.

OldKingCole said:

MrEd said:

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Dorries you mean? Seriously?

Culture?

That's what Bolton has just suggested.

@kinabalu will have a heart attack

Could be worse. Imagine the reaction from Y Doethr and Fysics if Dorries gets education.

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Education Secretary?

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This does seem to be an extensive shuffle

First proper reshuffle since just after the 2019 election.

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Dorries you mean? Seriously?

Culture?

That's what Bolton has just suggested.

I guess she is a BBC hater then.

I think if she is going there, it has more to do with Channel 4's sale

Was Ms Dorries not on 'I'm a Celebrity'?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

SandyRentool said:

Mad Nad into No. 10.

Time to get worried...

Dorries you mean? Seriously?

Culture?

That's what Bolton has just suggested.

I guess she is a BBC hater then.

I think if she is going there, it has more to do with Channel 4's sale

Was Ms Dorries not on 'I'm a Celebrity'?

Maybe she will be Sec of State for Populism"?

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?

Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.

I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

On Truss:

This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries:
- Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU.
- Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...

She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.

https://twitter.com/GeorginaEWright/status/1438158004986290188?s=20

But then again:

The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.

https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1438159052840841224?s=20

I think Truss will be a good Foreign Secretary - she's more thoughtful than Raab, and did a good job at international trade.

Williamson - no loss. Pleased to see the Housing Minister Jenrick go, because that needs to be a focus for the government going forward and he seemed to be largely without idea.

Raab has effectively been promoted out of the way.

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

On Truss:

This is good and bad for the EU and EU27 countries:
- Good because of consistency: there will be no softening of the UK's attitude toward EU.
- Bad because, to my knowledge, Truss has no close ties to any of the EU27 foreign ministers (let alone EU leaders)...

She will also need to pay attention to what EU is doing on foreign policy - as for many member states, the EU is an essential part of their foreign policy. Truss doesn't need to love the EU but ignoring it (even in private meetings) won't go down well.

https://twitter.com/GeorginaEWright/status/1438158004986290188?s=20

But then again:

The President of the Commission has just delivered a State of the Union speech in which she didn't mention the UK. Ignoring each other may become the new norm for UK/EU relations.

https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1438159052840841224?s=20

I think Truss will be a good Foreign Secretary - she's more thoughtful than Raab, and did a good job at international trade.

Williamson - no loss. Pleased to see the Housing Minister Jenrick go, because that needs to be a focus for the government going forward and he seemed to be largely without idea.

Raab has effectively been promoted out of the way.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?

Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.

I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?

He flies to places which the PM does not wish to visit, to have meetings with counterparties who are too important for Diplomats, but not as important as for the PM.

Basically - Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, etc.

IshmaelZ said:

JosiasJessop said:

IshmaelZ said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

JosiasJessop said:

Cookie said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

Cyclefree said:

The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.

Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.

The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)

I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.

I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.

I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.

But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.

I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.

And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.

"Everyone is born either a male or a female."

Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.

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

Gosh, that one is fast becoming an old chestnut. This is incredibly rare. Are you suggesting that transgender people are "intersex" people?

Of course not, although the groups might intersect (*)

Intersex people may be 'Incredibly' rare, or just rare, depending on definition. But they still exist. And deserve a little more understanding than being ignored with "Everyone is born either a male or a female."

(*) Goodness, how I hate using 'intersect' nowadays...

Sure. I wonder how many exist in the UK?

A god question, and it probably depends on the definition of 'intersex'. The following says over 300k, which seems massively high to me:
https://www.bacp.co.uk/bacp-journals/private-practice/march-2018/understanding-intersex/

I could believe that 0.02% or 1.7% might be correct, depending on the definition. Intersex is probably a range of things, not all of which might be immediately physically obvious.

I'd love to see other figures.

But it isn't zero.

That's the population of Leicester. A ridiculous figure taken from a unpublished dissertation. So somewhere between zero and the population of :Leicester. I'm betting much closer to zero.

But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality. The "not everyone is either male sex or female sex" gambit is like me saying that a coin toss will result in a heads or a tails outcome and them saying "No, no you are wrong, it could land on its edge".

"But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality."

Wow. You're trying to say intersex people are so vanishingly close to zero that they might as well live in Haiti (*), and then you come out with that?

I don't know the true number of intersex people. Which, you might think, is actually a symptom of the problem. People like to pigeonhole others; say they fit into nice little categories. Well, it seems humans are not that simple to pigeonhole. Whether it is boys wanting to date other boys, boys wanting to be girls, or people born with a confusing gender, people are messy and confusing.

We need to start accepting that.

(*) For anyone reading this morning's thread...

What? We need to *start* accepting boys wanting to date other boys?

The transgender people I know are happy getting on with life and anywhere between neutral and seriously hostile to people purporting to activise on their behalf. It's like the anti apartheid stuff in the 70s and 80s: go down to a South African township, and the quickest way to get severely beaten or killed, other than wear a Rolex, is to start giving it large about how you stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against racial injustice. People are just sooooo ungrateful.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

I'm not trying to activise on their behalf. I'm just giving my view, based on the experiences I've had in life, and the people I've known. I don't go onto the streets to campaign for them, or onto any specialist websites. As I said this morning, many pro-trans activists go to far, as do anti-trans ones.

But I'll state my views on here, and argue strongly with others when I think they're wrong. And that is the nature of PB.

I am not talking about you, sorry if you thought I was.

It may be just that I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist here out west, but I didn't think being anti-trans was a big thing. I'm not aware of any insulting expressions equivalent to faggot, poofter etc. And you can see why there wouldn't be. It is relatively easy to understand (meaning solely understand, not in a million years empathize with) some elements of being anti gay: it is deprecated in the Bible, just about, if you squint enough, and it's a thing people do as well as just are. Neither of which applies to trans people So my impression of the activists is that they are hysterically seeking out anti transism just as the HUAC sought out un American activities.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?

Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.

I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?

He flies to places which the PM does not wish to visit, to have meetings with counterparties who are too important for Diplomats, but not as important as for the PM.

Basically - Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, etc.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

Don't forget Margaret Beckett who was also Foreign Secretary under Blair.

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

Robin Cook was quite a character. Not his fault, but he looked like an odd mixture of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel crossed with a man with severe road rage.

Wrong breed. Try Border Terrier. Not its fault, either.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

And how much of a role did Cook actually have in creating foreign policy? Or Straw?

Blair seemed to do it all himself. It was Bush and Blair determining policy, not Cook.

I may be incredibly ignorant here, in which case I apologise, but what exactly does the Foreign Secretary do that is so "great"?

JosiasJessop said:

IshmaelZ said:

JosiasJessop said:

IshmaelZ said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

JosiasJessop said:

Cookie said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stocky said:

Cyclefree said:

The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.

Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.

The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)

I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.

I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.

I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.

But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.

I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.

And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.

"Everyone is born either a male or a female."

Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.

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

Gosh, that one is fast becoming an old chestnut. This is incredibly rare. Are you suggesting that transgender people are "intersex" people?

Of course not, although the groups might intersect (*)

Intersex people may be 'Incredibly' rare, or just rare, depending on definition. But they still exist. And deserve a little more understanding than being ignored with "Everyone is born either a male or a female."

(*) Goodness, how I hate using 'intersect' nowadays...

Sure. I wonder how many exist in the UK?

A god question, and it probably depends on the definition of 'intersex'. The following says over 300k, which seems massively high to me:
https://www.bacp.co.uk/bacp-journals/private-practice/march-2018/understanding-intersex/

I could believe that 0.02% or 1.7% might be correct, depending on the definition. Intersex is probably a range of things, not all of which might be immediately physically obvious.

I'd love to see other figures.

But it isn't zero.

That's the population of Leicester. A ridiculous figure taken from a unpublished dissertation. So somewhere between zero and the population of :Leicester. I'm betting much closer to zero.

But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality. The "not everyone is either male sex or female sex" gambit is like me saying that a coin toss will result in a heads or a tails outcome and them saying "No, no you are wrong, it could land on its edge".

"But anyway this is what I mean by the trans lobby lacking intelligence and rationality."

Wow. You're trying to say intersex people are so vanishingly close to zero that they might as well live in Haiti (*), and then you come out with that?

I don't know the true number of intersex people. Which, you might think, is actually a symptom of the problem. People like to pigeonhole others; say they fit into nice little categories. Well, it seems humans are not that simple to pigeonhole. Whether it is boys wanting to date other boys, boys wanting to be girls, or people born with a confusing gender, people are messy and confusing.

We need to start accepting that.

(*) For anyone reading this morning's thread...

What? We need to *start* accepting boys wanting to date other boys?

The transgender people I know are happy getting on with life and anywhere between neutral and seriously hostile to people purporting to activise on their behalf. It's like the anti apartheid stuff in the 70s and 80s: go down to a South African township, and the quickest way to get severely beaten or killed, other than wear a Rolex, is to start giving it large about how you stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against racial injustice. People are just sooooo ungrateful.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

I'm not trying to activise on their behalf. I'm just giving my view, based on the experiences I've had in life, and the people I've known. I don't go onto the streets to campaign for them, or onto any specialist websites. As I said this morning, many pro-trans activists go to far, as do anti-trans ones.

But I'll state my views on here, and argue strongly with others when I think they're wrong. And that is the nature of PB.

I am not talking about you, sorry if you thought I was.

It may be just that I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist here out west, but I didn't think being anti-trans was a big thing. I'm not aware of any insulting expressions equivalent to faggot, poofter etc. And you can see why there wouldn't be. It is relatively easy to understand (meaning solely understand, not in a million years empathize with) some elements of being anti gay: it is deprecated in the Bible, just about, if you squint enough, and it's a thing people do as well as just are. Neither of which applies to trans people So my impression of the activists is that they are hysterically seeking out anti transism just as the HUAC sought out un American activities.

Fairy nuff.

But a question: in a post above, you say you know transgender people. When I knew a few transgender people (I don't at the moment, as it happens), I frequently heard comments directed against them - even from people in the same office. Nastiness disguised as 'jokes'. It was really bad for a friend of mine at school (who has now had the op).

Have you heard and experienced similar?

SandyRentool said:

So Gove and Raab both have new briefs.

***Add punchline here***

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mad Nad for Education! Dolores Umbridge made real.

Is that confirmed?

I imagine @ydoethur has steam coming out of his ears like a cartoon character right now.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy to see Truss get a promotion though I always felt she was doing more for our foreign relations as Trade Secretary than Raab did as Foreign Secretary. I hope she can keep up the good work and gets a worthy successor (unless I've missed it and its been named already).

But to be honest I've never been entirely certain why Foreign Secretary even is a Great Office nowadays. Without wanting to be ignorant, it seems all 'serious' foreign policy issues are done by the PM not the Foreign Secretary anyway. How much credibly foreign policy actually originates in the Foreign Office and not Downing Street?

Agree. Hard to remember who Blair's FS was, in a period overshadowed by foreign affairs.

Robin Cook, who famously resigned. Jack Straw after him I think.

Robin Cook was quite a character. Not his fault, but he looked like an odd mixture of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel crossed with a man with severe road rage.

Wrong breed. Try Border Terrier. Not its fault, either.

Border terriers are quite sweet. Take a look at a picture of a Cavalier King Charles and imagine it angry. It's the eyes!