You do great comedy about statistics and the interpretation of them. Yay!
But contrarily and on the other hand, you were practically befouling yourself with surprise two days ago at the thought that the initial detection of omicron in ZA, does not imply that the variant originates from ZA.
I assume you also think there are unusually high levels of special relativity in the Bern area?
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.
Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.
But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
The problem is that the male perverts, when caught in the women’s toilets, will say that they are trans women and that anyone questioning them is transphobic and committing offences under the Gender Recognition Act.
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
What legislation are you talking about?
Legally changing gender doesn't make it easier for a man to access a female toilet. So what's the link between the legal gender change process and a man accessing a female toilet?
There isn't one unless toilets are policed for gender via a certificate. If they were, yes, a man could be motivated to change gender, get the cert, and show it to gain access.
But they aren't. Nor are they policed for physical genital sex.
Unless you're proposing these things - which you surely aren't - I don't see where you're going with the comment.
The problem isn’t trans women. The problem is men, some of whom are sex offenders, posing as trans women.
But this is still not addressing my point.
How does making the legal gender change process easier make it more likely that such men will access female spaces that aren't policed for legal gender?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
I'm not a trans activist btw. I don't post on this anywhere else. My view is easier gender change process, default inclusion, exclusions for certain areas based on evidence and reason not prejudice and ignorance. Other than that, I'm total agnostic. Don't know or understand enough to be otherwise.
Wouldn’t have thought it was unreasonable for a man, complete with penis, who wants to sit in ladies changing rooms to keep some kind of document saying he is transitioning handy, or are we at the stage where it would be too offensive to them to presume they might be the man they are?
If you support gender id cards just say so - you don't have to make your prejudice quite so clear at the same time.
Who needs a card? His gender id is hanging between his legs.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.
Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.
But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
The problem is that the male perverts, when caught in the women’s toilets, will say that they are trans women and that anyone questioning them is transphobic and committing offences under the Gender Recognition Act.
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
What legislation are you talking about?
Legally changing gender doesn't make it easier for a man to access a female toilet. So what's the link between the legal gender change process and a man accessing a female toilet?
There isn't one unless toilets are policed for gender via a certificate. If they were, yes, a man could be motivated to change gender, get the cert, and show it to gain access.
But they aren't. Nor are they policed for physical genital sex.
Unless you're proposing these things - which you surely aren't - I don't see where you're going with the comment.
The problem isn’t trans women. The problem is men, some of whom are sex offenders, posing as trans women.
But this is still not addressing my point.
How does making the legal gender change process easier make it more likely that such men will access female spaces that aren't policed for legal gender?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
I'm not a trans activist btw. I don't post on this anywhere else. My view is easier gender change process, default inclusion, exclusions for certain areas based on evidence and reason not prejudice and ignorance. Other than that, I'm total agnostic. Don't know or understand enough to be otherwise.
Wouldn’t have thought it was unreasonable for a man, complete with penis, who wants to sit in ladies changing rooms to keep some kind of document saying he is transitioning handy, or are we at the stage where it would be too offensive to them to presume they might be the man they are?
If you support gender id cards just say so - you don't have to make your prejudice quite so clear at the same time.
Who needs a card? His gender id is hanging between his legs.
Glad the killers of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes have been found guilty.
For all those who expend their energy worrying about the theoretical harm being done to trans kids, we’ll, there are some very real cases of extreme child abuse like Arthur’s that should worry us more.
Just my 2p.
Btw - serious fuckup by Solihull council social workers.
Please no party pumping or market massaging. Just curious as to whether there are any feelings? I remember that at Chesham & Amersham we began to get a sense that the LibDems were on a roll, something which was felt much sooner than the day itself including famously by Mike Smithson on here.
Please no party pumping or market massaging. Just curious as to whether there are any feelings? I remember that at Chesham & Amersham we began to get a sense that the LibDems were on a roll, something which was felt much sooner than the day itself including famously by Mike Smithson on here.
I'm not on the ground, but I'm getting the feeling from Brentwood* that the Tories will hold this.
I’m a bit of a bugs crisis expert now after reading PB for two weeks, and I can tell you even before the spike in cases led to spike in admissions led to spike in deaths, the Gnome experts went ‘uh uh’ when looking at the prong things.
Like Brexit means Brexit; gnome experts going uh uh means uh uh. Sadly.
Please no party pumping or market massaging. Just curious as to whether there are any feelings? I remember that at Chesham & Amersham we began to get a sense that the LibDems were on a roll, something which was felt much sooner than the day itself including famously by Mike Smithson on here.
I'm not on the ground, but I'm getting the feeling from Brentwood* that the Tories will hold this.
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
(It was banned in reaction to protests from Amazon employees, who also wanted Shrier's book banned.)
Do you happen to know whether either book is available in the UK?
Thanks,
I had not hear of it before now, so sorry I don't know if its available in the UK.
(p.s. a had made the assumption from the name that it was trying to normalise the transition having just googled it I see its the opposite, which explains why it was 'banned' by amazon so recently)
The Downing Street New Years knees up planning committee! 😧
Here is the budget from the leaked minutes:
Booze: £100k Legal fees to come up with spurious but plausible deniability for breaking rules: £300k. Is Geoffrey around for some advice? Redecoration post event: £100k
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.
Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.
But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
The problem is that the male perverts, when caught in the women’s toilets, will say that they are trans women and that anyone questioning them is transphobic and committing offences under the Gender Recognition Act.
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
What legislation are you talking about?
Legally changing gender doesn't make it easier for a man to access a female toilet. So what's the link between the legal gender change process and a man accessing a female toilet?
There isn't one unless toilets are policed for gender via a certificate. If they were, yes, a man could be motivated to change gender, get the cert, and show it to gain access.
But they aren't. Nor are they policed for physical genital sex.
Unless you're proposing these things - which you surely aren't - I don't see where you're going with the comment.
The problem isn’t trans women. The problem is men, some of whom are sex offenders, posing as trans women.
But this is still not addressing my point.
How does making the legal gender change process easier make it more likely that such men will access female spaces that aren't policed for legal gender?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
I'm not a trans activist btw. I don't post on this anywhere else. My view is easier gender change process, default inclusion, exclusions for certain areas based on evidence and reason not prejudice and ignorance. Other than that, I'm total agnostic. Don't know or understand enough to be otherwise.
Wouldn’t have thought it was unreasonable for a man, complete with penis, who wants to sit in ladies changing rooms to keep some kind of document saying he is transitioning handy, or are we at the stage where it would be too offensive to them to presume they might be the man they are?
If you support gender id cards just say so - you don't have to make your prejudice quite so clear at the same time.
Who needs a card? His gender id is hanging between his legs.
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
Not necessarily:
"Vax-induced immunity works differently to prior-infection, and there’s reason to believe that with a heavily mutated variant, vax may fare better due to vax-induced antibodies’ ability to bind to more parts of the virus than infxn-induced Abs. BUT don’t know yet."
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.
Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.
But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
The problem is that the male perverts, when caught in the women’s toilets, will say that they are trans women and that anyone questioning them is transphobic and committing offences under the Gender Recognition Act.
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
What legislation are you talking about?
Legally changing gender doesn't make it easier for a man to access a female toilet. So what's the link between the legal gender change process and a man accessing a female toilet?
There isn't one unless toilets are policed for gender via a certificate. If they were, yes, a man could be motivated to change gender, get the cert, and show it to gain access.
But they aren't. Nor are they policed for physical genital sex.
Unless you're proposing these things - which you surely aren't - I don't see where you're going with the comment.
The problem isn’t trans women. The problem is men, some of whom are sex offenders, posing as trans women.
But this is still not addressing my point.
How does making the legal gender change process easier make it more likely that such men will access female spaces that aren't policed for legal gender?
I think the point (and I have some sympathy with this) is that your creepy but not quite criminal man who wants to hang out in the women's toilets can presently be moved on in short order, simply for being a man. Say he's loitering by the basins, leering at the women in the mirror. Nothing criminal, but he's not allowed to be there. If a women reports it to the staff, he'll be fetched out. If he, by claiming to indentify as 'she' has a legal right to stay in there then it becomes a lot more shades of grey. Can only reasonably be expelled for.... what? Taking too long in there? Looking in the mirror allegedly at women? Could be a threatening presence about which little could be done.
I don't think that this is about the man waving his penis around in the women's toilets, which would surely still result in expulsion, but about the more subtle stuff. One person could cause a lot of trouble and unease, without doing anything overtly wrong.
Are there many of these men? I don't know. Some though, I expect. And if you're a woman being harassed by one of them then you're not really going to care whether it's common or not. It's intimidating/unpleasant. but if you report it, you report - what? - someone looked at me a bit funny or is taking a long time?
On the other hand, the genuinely transitioning woman should, imho, be able to use that space. And I'm not really into defining what people have to wear to get into that space - only transgender women in dresses, ridiculous?
I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think there would be some issues raised by the ability for people to self-ID and be legally treated as self-Id gender.
Self ID is still a legal process, not an instantaneous reversible decision, isn't it? Hence there should be some legal documentation, such as Drivers licence etc.
So you wish to hang round women's toilets. Currently it's hard to pass the huddles put in your way to allow you to legally do so.
With self-identification it's simply a matter of filling in a form and waiting a few weeks.
Now I can see a whole lot of reasons why self-identification is a better approach but, sadly, it opens things up for abuse, and a lot of women have valid (personal) reasons for wanting a 100% safe space and self-identification removes that
I am not advocating Self ID, but it is the case that a legal process is still required, just a de-medicalised one.
Trans activists want all sorts of medical interventions for themselves - and especially for children - but on the one thing that has an impact on the rights of others, all of a sudden they no longer want any sort of medical verification of what they claim is a medical condition, which if not satisfied will lead to all sorts of appalling things happening. Odd that.
I'm not a trans activist btw. I don't post on this anywhere else. My view is easier gender change process, default inclusion, exclusions for certain areas based on evidence and reason not prejudice and ignorance. Other than that, I'm total agnostic. Don't know or understand enough to be otherwise.
Wouldn’t have thought it was unreasonable for a man, complete with penis, who wants to sit in ladies changing rooms to keep some kind of document saying he is transitioning handy, or are we at the stage where it would be too offensive to them to presume they might be the man they are?
If you support gender id cards just say so - you don't have to make your prejudice quite so clear at the same time.
Who needs a card? His gender id is hanging between his legs.
I knew about the abuse but I thought it mainly involved really terrible food?
If they were reptilian, wouldn't they be "non human" anyway because human beings are mammals?
Does she mean extra-terrestrial?
I'm getting increasingly concerned about the rise of tautology in modern discourse.
Both tautology and saying the same thing twice are super annoying.
Firstly, this group are actually against all ritual Satanic abuse? Activist for ritual satanic abuse? Or ritual satanic abuse as a preserve, as you say for human manalks it’s sacrilege if tainted by reptiles? The way they are described makes it sound like satanises being ritually abused?
Secondly my counsellor says there are no aliens in the universe because all life in the universe comes from God’s consciousness so we are all technically the same whatever planet we are from.
Apologies if some of the stuff I post is just too damn heave for you to understand.
I knew about the abuse but I thought it mainly involved really terrible food?
If they were reptilian, wouldn't they be "non human" anyway because human beings are mammals?
Does she mean extra-terrestrial?
I'm getting increasingly concerned about the rise of tautology in modern discourse.
Both tautology and saying the same thing twice are super annoying.
Firstly, this group are actually against all ritual Satanic abuse? Activist for ritual satanic abuse? Or ritual satanic abuse as a preserve, as you say for human manalks it’s sacrilege if tainted by reptiles? The way they are described makes it sound like satanises being ritually abused?
Secondly my counsellor says there are no aliens in the universe because all life in the universe comes from God’s consciousness so we are all technically the same whatever planet we are from.
Apologies if some of the stuff I post is just too damn heave for you to understand.
And apologists if I have too much to drink waiting for dinner
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
Either you have a Nobel prize for immunology, or why on earth should anyone accept your "good chance"? If you don't have an answer then the more useless disease-acquired immunity is the more important we vaccinate, shirley?
Plus, just a quirk of mine, but when I find someone writing Bollox for bollocks, I tend to assume I am dealing with a complete and utter qhont.
Have we discussed the weird Scotsman poll? Sudden bounce for independence, now 55-45. Personal ratings Sturgeon +20, Sarwar +17 (also a bounce upwards), Ross -27, Johnson -64 (the lowest rating ever recorded by Ipsos-Mori) SNP 52 (+2), Con 19 (-1), Lab 17(-5!) constituency, 43/20/15 and Greens 12 regional. So a typical Scot is an Indy-loving, Sarwar-loving, Labour-hating voter.
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
...
Plus, just a quirk of mine, but when I find someone writing Bollox for bollocks, I tend to assume I am dealing with a complete and utter qhont.
The Downing Street New Years knees up planning committee! 😧
Here is the budget from the leaked minutes:
Booze: £100k Legal fees to come up with spurious but plausible deniability for breaking rules: £300k. Is Geoffrey around for some advice? Redecoration post event: £100k
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
Either you have a Nobel prize for immunology, or why on earth should anyone accept your "good chance"? If you don't have an answer then the more useless disease-acquired immunity is the more important we vaccinate, shirley?
Plus, just a quirk of mine, but when I find someone writing Bollox for bollocks, I tend to assume I am dealing with a complete and utter qhont.
Actually it was just a genuine question.
Not sure why I've got a stream of abuse in response.
Glad the killers of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes have been found guilty.
For all those who expend their energy worrying about the theoretical harm being done to trans kids, we’ll, there are some very real cases of extreme child abuse like Arthur’s that should worry us more.
Just my 2p.
Btw - serious fuckup by Solihull council social workers.
The odd point that I saw was he grandmother had photos but the social workers told her they didn’t want to see them
Have we discussed the weird Scotsman poll? Sudden bounce for independence, now 55-45. Personal ratings Sturgeon +20, Sarwar +17 (also a bounce upwards), Ross -27, Johnson -64 (the lowest rating ever recorded by Ipsos-Mori) SNP 52 (+2), Con 19 (-1), Lab 17(-5!) constituency, 43/20/15 and Greens 12 regional. So a typical Scot is an Indy-loving, Sarwar-loving, Labour-hating voter.
Apparently.
@HYUFD was on earlier explaining how this was a great poll for Johnson IIRC.
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
Not necessarily:
"Vax-induced immunity works differently to prior-infection, and there’s reason to believe that with a heavily mutated variant, vax may fare better due to vax-induced antibodies’ ability to bind to more parts of the virus than infxn-induced Abs. BUT don’t know yet."
Have we discussed the weird Scotsman poll? Sudden bounce for independence, now 55-45. Personal ratings Sturgeon +20, Sarwar +17 (also a bounce upwards), Ross -27, Johnson -64 (the lowest rating ever recorded by Ipsos-Mori) SNP 52 (+2), Con 19 (-1), Lab 17(-5!) constituency, 43/20/15 and Greens 12 regional. So a typical Scot is an Indy-loving, Sarwar-loving, Labour-hating voter.
Apparently.
Several times. Most recently when HYUFD insisted on counting the NDs against indy. But don't forget Mr Ross was caught not, erm,. bothering to declare his earnings from (a) his second apparently full time job as a representative in another parliament, AND his third job as a footie referee.
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
Not necessarily:
"Vax-induced immunity works differently to prior-infection, and there’s reason to believe that with a heavily mutated variant, vax may fare better due to vax-induced antibodies’ ability to bind to more parts of the virus than infxn-induced Abs. BUT don’t know yet."
Thinking about the new Omicron variant and the vaccine that is being develop to be optimised to beet it:
The original Physer variant was developed in a weekend, yes just a weekend, in January 2019. All it took was for the genetic code to be spliced in to the mRNA technology. ok maybe a bit more complex than that, but not a lot.
it then took 9 months to test and get approval of the vaccine. and a bit longer to ramp up production.
What will become the Omicron vaccine probably already exists, and Phser wording with the FDA and other regulators think and hope they can have it approved in 100 days.
I would like to take it now, and not wait till its been approved, I know there are risks, and we don't know exactly how effective it would be, but I would like to take it now, as to me that's an acceptable risk/reward payoff, I'm happy to sine a legal waver to explanate the makers of the vaccine, and I'm happy to pay for it with my own money.
Questions:
1. Should I have the right to take a medication like this that has not been approved? 2. If not why not? 3. Would anybody else join me if this was an option?
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Thinking about the new Omicron variant and the vaccine that is being develop to be optimised to beet it:
The original Physer variant was developed in a weekend, yes just a weekend, in January 2019. All it took was for the genetic code to be spliced in to the mRNA technology. ok maybe a bit more complex than that, but not a lot.
it then took 9 months to test and get approval of the vaccine. and a bit longer to ramp up production.
What will become the Omicron vaccine probably already exists, and Phser wording with the FDA and other regulators think and hope they can have it approved in 100 days.
I would like to take it now, and not wait till its been approved, I know there are risks, and we don't know exactly how effective it would be, but I would like to take it now, as to me that's an acceptable risk/reward payoff, I'm happy to sine a legal waver to explanate the makers of the vaccine, and I'm happy to pay for it with my own money.
Questions:
1. Should I have the right to take a medication like this that has not been approved? 2. If not why not? 3. Would anybody else join me if this was an option?
I think Classic Dom, before the select committee, suggested that they could have speeded up approval for the vaccines by skipping straight to jabbing a few thousand people with both the vaccine then COVID, and paying £1 000 000 to the families of any test subjects that died. I think it's good, but I'd pull the lever in the trolley problem.
Thinking about the new Omicron variant and the vaccine that is being develop to be optimised to beet it:
The original Physer variant was developed in a weekend, yes just a weekend, in January 2019. All it took was for the genetic code to be spliced in to the mRNA technology. ok maybe a bit more complex than that, but not a lot.
it then took 9 months to test and get approval of the vaccine. and a bit longer to ramp up production.
What will become the Omicron vaccine probably already exists, and Phser wording with the FDA and other regulators think and hope they can have it approved in 100 days.
I would like to take it now, and not wait till its been approved, I know there are risks, and we don't know exactly how effective it would be, but I would like to take it now, as to me that's an acceptable risk/reward payoff, I'm happy to sine a legal waver to explanate the makers of the vaccine, and I'm happy to pay for it with my own money.
Questions:
1. Should I have the right to take a medication like this that has not been approved? 2. If not why not? 3. Would anybody else join me if this was an option?
I think Classic Dom, before the select committee, suggested that they could have speeded up approval for the vaccines by skipping straight to jabbing a few thousand people with both the vaccine then COVID, and paying £1 000 000 to the families of any test subjects that died. I think it's good, but I'd pull the lever in the trolley problem.
Did they ever run those trials where they exposed people to covid in the end? A lot of people signed up for them.
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
One of the reasons she gives, that Labour still has no shadow minister for employment rights and protections, after the previous leftwinger left the post, is actually quite a good one. The idea that the party would seek to beef up employment rights in some areas, while moving much more to the centre in other areas, was part of the grand bargain that many even on the Soft Left are anxious to see continue.
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection.
If confirmed (and it was already expected to be the case), this finding obviously has rather disagreeable consequences for the cohorts in the UK, and especially in some other countries, where much of the immunity is currently from prior infections.
Summary: Get thee to a jabbery, if you haven't already.
Bollox. I’m not hopeful that the current vaccines are gonna save us.
Bravo and well said, and don't get one. Gene pools don't regulate themselves.
I’m double jabbed and will get my booster when offered. I just think the current evidence points to our current vaccines not being very effective vs Omicron.
You can write interesting/constructive posts on this site if you want. You don’t have to be constantly cynical/sarky. It’s your choice.
Sure. Thanks.
You don't seem to have fully understood, to put it very mildly and politely, Mr Nabavi's post. Nor mine.
I'm lost. If prior immunity doesn't work then good chance vax wont either?
Not necessarily:
"Vax-induced immunity works differently to prior-infection, and there’s reason to believe that with a heavily mutated variant, vax may fare better due to vax-induced antibodies’ ability to bind to more parts of the virus than infxn-induced Abs. BUT don’t know yet."
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
That will only happen if No. 10 has extra Christmas parties again.
Glad the killers of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes have been found guilty.
For all those who expend their energy worrying about the theoretical harm being done to trans kids, we’ll, there are some very real cases of extreme child abuse like Arthur’s that should worry us more.
Just my 2p.
Btw - serious fuckup by Solihull council social workers.
The odd point that I saw was he grandmother had photos but the social workers told her they didn’t want to see them
The social workers saw the photos and did a visit just 26 hours later - and then said they couldn't see any bruises on Arthur. They had a medical expert testify that it was impossible for the bruises to have cleared up that quickly.
This is a bit strange and something that the Independent investigation into social services that will now happen will doubtless look into.
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Warned, or stated? Warning implies it's just a threat to try and maximise influence.
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Warned, or stated? Warning implies it's just a threat to try and maximise influence.
I always take the warning / threats with a bit of a pinch of salt. When push comes to shove they always end up opening the cheque book for the GE. At the end of the day it is in their interests to do so.
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Warned, or stated? Warning implies it's just a threat to try and maximise influence.
I always take the warning / threats with a bit of a pinch of salt. When push comes to shove they always end up opening the cheque book for the GE. At the end of the day it is in their interests to do so.
Of course this one claimed she didn't want to meddle in politics. Not sure anyone believed her.
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Warned, or stated? Warning implies it's just a threat to try and maximise influence.
I always take the warning / threats with a bit of a pinch of salt. When push comes to shove they always end up opening the cheque book for the GE. At the end of the day it is in their interests to do so.
Of course this one claimed she didn't want to meddle in politics. Not sure anyone believed her.
Given UNITE's extraordinary track record of not merely total, abject and utter failure but actually achieving the precise and polar opposite of what they intended whenever their cretinous excuses for leaders intervene in politics, not meddling would probably actually be the smart move from her point of view.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 1h I thought the whole point of the EU (or so EU leaders tell us) is that it's the bulwark against fascism and war returning to the continent of Europe...
Yet Italy, Austria, Germany and now France are going down the road to fascism, declaring war on their own people.
Terrifying.
===
Is mandatory vax fascism? Sounds like a good essay question for PPE at an Oxford college.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 1h I thought the whole point of the EU (or so EU leaders tell us) is that it's the bulwark against fascism and war returning to the continent of Europe...
Yet Italy, Austria, Germany and now France are going down the road to fascism, declaring war on their own people.
Terrifying.
===
Is mandatory vax fascism? Sounds like a good essay question for PPE at an Oxford college.
If you hadn't mentioned vax I would have incorrectly assumed she was talking about the likes of Zemmour, Le Pen, Salvini and the Freedom Party and that JHB was mellowing!
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
There were reports that the farmers were raising far fewer turkeys than usual cos of Brexit labour shortages. So of course they run out early.
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
There were reports that the fartmers were raising far fewer turkeys than usual cos of Brexit labour shortages. So of course they run out early.
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
You think people are stockpiling turkeys like bog rolls? The question is whether enough euro-birds can get past the Brexit paperwork in time for the big day.
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Good perhaps Mexican Pete, Southam Observer Jonathon and CHB can make up the shortfall
Glad the killers of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes have been found guilty.
For all those who expend their energy worrying about the theoretical harm being done to trans kids, we’ll, there are some very real cases of extreme child abuse like Arthur’s that should worry us more.
Just my 2p.
Btw - serious fuckup by Solihull council social workers.
The odd point that I saw was he grandmother had photos but the social workers told her they didn’t want to see them
The social workers saw the photos and did a visit just 26 hours later - and then said they couldn't see any bruises on Arthur. They had a medical expert testify that it was impossible for the bruises to have cleared up that quickly.
This is a bit strange and something that the Independent investigation into social services that will now happen will doubtless look into.
Lessons Will Be learned.
Some junior people will get the boot.
Some senior people will have to be let go, provided that higher paying, more responsible jobs can be found for them. Some assistance will be required to help them carry their golden goodbye settlements.....
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
You think people are stockpiling turkeys like bog rolls? The question is whether enough euro-birds can get past the Brexit paperwork in time for the big day.
No, that's not what it is staying. It is saying people have rushed to their orders in for Christmas much earlier.
Remember, there wasn't actually a fuel shortage before the panic buying. The few petrol stations that ran short were because of the change over into the new fuel type and the media then caused panic buying. The actual total fuel being delivered nationwide was still in excessive of demand before the fake news.
We will have to wait and see if again it is just people have rushed early to order it for Christmas rather than thinking arhhh I will sort it December. As I student, I worked in an M&S distribution centre and the orders for whole turkeys were sold out way in advance of Christmas.
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
There were reports that the fartmers were raising far fewer turkeys than usual cos of Brexit labour shortages. So of course they run out early.
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
There were reports that the fartmers were raising far fewer turkeys than usual cos of Brexit labour shortages. So of course they run out early.
No need to be rude about them.
Quite; inadvertent; sorry; corrected.
Only a joke. Anyway, I thought we'd already covered this and the shortage is in shitty frozen turkeys.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 1h I thought the whole point of the EU (or so EU leaders tell us) is that it's the bulwark against fascism and war returning to the continent of Europe...
Yet Italy, Austria, Germany and now France are going down the road to fascism, declaring war on their own people.
Terrifying.
===
Is mandatory vax fascism? Sounds like a good essay question for PPE at an Oxford college.
Has Hugo Boss been put on standby?
Not sure you have proper Fascism without the quality uniforms.
I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.
Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.
Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.
The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.
So what would be great about his PM-ship.
Boris will without doubt be always known as the Prime Minister of Brexit and covid and while not being great will be spoken about for many years to come
I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.
Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.
Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.
The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.
So what would be great about his PM-ship.
Boris will without doubt be always known as the Prime Minister of Brexit and covid and while not being great will be spoken about for many years to come
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
There were reports that the fartmers were raising far fewer turkeys than usual cos of Brexit labour shortages. So of course they run out early.
No need to be rude about them.
Quite; inadvertent; sorry; corrected.
Only a joke. Anyway, I thought we'd already covered this and the shortage is in shitty frozen turkeys.
So did I, but it sounds as if the order shortage has backed up (so to speak).
Edit: at least I have plenty of wine, including 4 bottles of port. Though whether we get a pheasant for Xmas remains to be seen.
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Good perhaps Mexican Pete, Southam Observer Jonathon and CHB can make up the shortfall
Maybe the problem is Graham sees Labour as "just another leftwing cause" and not working people's only route to democratic representation?
Have we discussed the weird Scotsman poll? Sudden bounce for independence, now 55-45. Personal ratings Sturgeon +20, Sarwar +17 (also a bounce upwards), Ross -27, Johnson -64 (the lowest rating ever recorded by Ipsos-Mori) SNP 52 (+2), Con 19 (-1), Lab 17(-5!) constituency, 43/20/15 and Greens 12 regional. So a typical Scot is an Indy-loving, Sarwar-loving, Labour-hating voter.
Apparently.
Looks like an outlier, especially when you look at a the list of recent polls
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 1h I thought the whole point of the EU (or so EU leaders tell us) is that it's the bulwark against fascism and war returning to the continent of Europe...
Yet Italy, Austria, Germany and now France are going down the road to fascism, declaring war on their own people.
Terrifying.
===
Is mandatory vax fascism? Sounds like a good essay question for PPE at an Oxford college.
Has Hugo Boss been put on standby?
Not sure you have proper Fascism without the quality uniforms.
That's Nazism; Fascism was Italian, and arguably Spanish. But I am not au fait with high fashion there.
"She said she would instead put money into campaigns that would “set the pace” for Labour to follow. She pointed to the Scottish government’s proposal for a national care service, reforming social care, as an example of a cause that Unite would campaign for in the hope of influencing UK-wide policy."
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
There were reports that the fartmers were raising far fewer turkeys than usual cos of Brexit labour shortages. So of course they run out early.
No need to be rude about them.
Quite; inadvertent; sorry; corrected.
Only a joke. Anyway, I thought we'd already covered this and the shortage is in shitty frozen turkeys.
So did I, but it sounds as if the order shortage has backed up (so to speak).
Edit: at least I have plenty of wine, including 4 bottles of port. Though whether we get a pheasant for Xmas remains to be seen.
Well if you're after pheasant, supply shortages shouldn't affect the road kill option. Admittedly more expensive with current petrol prices though.
US sues to block chipmaker Nvidia's $40 billion merger with UK's Arm
I am sure the UK government will be happy if that happens and they don't have to make a difficult decision. It does beg the question who could buy them if not Nvidia.
Surely the right thing to do is allow them to walk in a goal at the other end?
Why?
Arsenal didn't do anything wrong, it was Fred that took out De Gea, and Smith-Rowe didn't even know about De Gea being on the floor when he hit the shot.
If De Gea is fit enough to continue, perhaps he could have remained alert to the danger there
Surely the right thing to do is allow them to walk in a goal at the other end?
Why?
Arsenal didn't do anything wrong, it was Fred that took out De Gea, and Smith-Rowe didn't even know about De Gea being on the floor when he hit the shot.
If De Gea is fit enough to continue, perhaps he could have remained alert to the danger there
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to other leftwing causes, the union’s new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
Good perhaps Mexican Pete, Southam Observer Jonathon and CHB can make up the shortfall
Good to get a name check.
Starmer can at least say he isn't in Sharon Graham's pocket.
I was genuinely offended by Len threatening to turn the taps off if he wasn't allowed to toss his tuppence worth of nonsense into the Labour Party policy pot.
The last time I paid Labour Party fees it felt like I was taking on most of Len's burden anyway and that was almost a decade ago.
Omicron has a "substantial" ability to evade immunity from a previous COVID infection, according to the first real-world study of the variant's effect https://trib.al/CuMTQWV
Mail: Turkeys are sold out at poultry farms after food shortage fears saw orders placed six weeks early - as government plays down fears wine and spirits will run dry
More panic buying idioicy like the bog rolls and petrol.
There were reports that the farmers were raising far fewer turkeys than usual cos of Brexit labour shortages. So of course they run out early.
My local Turkey farm has one with my name on it. But they only have half as many as usual, due to Labour shortage.
Have we discussed the weird Scotsman poll? Sudden bounce for independence, now 55-45. Personal ratings Sturgeon +20, Sarwar +17 (also a bounce upwards), Ross -27, Johnson -64 (the lowest rating ever recorded by Ipsos-Mori) SNP 52 (+2), Con 19 (-1), Lab 17(-5!) constituency, 43/20/15 and Greens 12 regional. So a typical Scot is an Indy-loving, Sarwar-loving, Labour-hating voter.
Apparently.
Several times. Most recently when HYUFD insisted on counting the NDs against indy. But don't forget Mr Ross was caught not, erm,. bothering to declare his earnings from (a) his second apparently full time job as a representative in another parliament, AND his third job as a footie referee.
Edit: but that SLAB discrepancy is odd.
Scots look at Anas Sarwar and think he’s not too bad (compared to his predecessors). Then they look at their local Labour councillors and think “I’m not voting for that bunch of incompetent troughers”.
"A Labour source insisted relations with trades unions, including Unite, were good and pointed out that affiliated unions had always funded other causes in their members’ interests."
Same source when asked to comment about the state of Party Finances muttered something about a Pot to Piss in and not having one!!
I don't think that Boris will necessarily go down in history as being a great PM.
Not just because I think he is a useless twat, but because if you think about it, "he got Brexit done" - no. Well he was in the car when it drove over the line and the history books will talk about a short while of back and forth while the details were hammered out but the Great British Public, given the opportunity by Cameron, got Brexit done. And those history books might point out, as they do today about, say, the Great Depression or the GFC, the UK's relative position following Brexit and that position might be unfavourable.
Then there's Covid. Again we will have to wait for all the stats but at the moment they don't seem hugely favourable or hugely unfavourable. Middle of the pack, with better than Eastern Europe and towards the bottom of Western Europe, for example. So not a "great" performance by any measure.
The economy? Would have to take a look but doesn't seem anything special.
So what would be great about his PM-ship.
Boris will without doubt be always known as the Prime Minister of Brexit and covid and while not being great will be spoken about for many years to come
Without anything on the credit side to balance off those two, his reputation in history looks like being ignominious. And that’s before you get to the growing list of gaffes and embarrassments.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 1h I thought the whole point of the EU (or so EU leaders tell us) is that it's the bulwark against fascism and war returning to the continent of Europe...
Yet Italy, Austria, Germany and now France are going down the road to fascism, declaring war on their own people.
Terrifying.
===
Is mandatory vax fascism? Sounds like a good essay question for PPE at an Oxford college.
No its not fascism. Its not ethical, but its not fascism.
Besides I don't think any of them are actually talking about mandatory vaccines, instead they're talking about financial charges for the unvaccinated to pay for their healthcare. An unvaccinated tax is entirely reasonable, there's a reason that smokers have to pay surcharge taxes and its entirely reasonable to expect the unvaccinated to pay theirs too.
Comments
https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/books/how-j-k-rowlings-troubled-blood-made-me-not-care-about-2-characters-id-loved/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59495842
Why have the BBC blurred the faces? It could be helpful in finding these people and above there are photos of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Harry_Became_Sally:_Responding_to_the_Transgender_Moment
(It was banned in reaction to protests from Amazon employees, who also wanted Shrier's book banned.)
Do you happen to know whether either book is available in the UK?
But contrarily and on the other hand, you were practically befouling yourself with surprise two days ago at the thought that the initial detection of omicron in ZA, does not imply that the variant originates from ZA.
I assume you also think there are unusually high levels of special relativity in the Bern area?
Just assumed from your post, that "wrong think" was a direct quotation from the review.
Please no party pumping or market massaging. Just curious as to whether there are any feelings? I remember that at Chesham & Amersham we began to get a sense that the LibDems were on a roll, something which was felt much sooner than the day itself including famously by Mike Smithson on here.
Passion of the Christ - which I very much enjoy, difficult as it is, is very true to the Old Catholic faith (that’s Gibson’s church).
* Brentwood, Los Angeles
Like Brexit means Brexit; gnome experts going uh uh means uh uh. Sadly.
I had not hear of it before now, so sorry I don't know if its available in the UK.
(p.s. a had made the assumption from the name that it was trying to normalise the transition having just googled it I see its the opposite, which explains why it was 'banned' by amazon so recently)
Booze: £100k
Legal fees to come up with spurious but plausible deniability for breaking rules: £300k. Is Geoffrey around for some advice?
Redecoration post event: £100k
"Vax-induced immunity works differently to prior-infection, and there’s reason to believe that with a heavily mutated variant, vax may fare better due to vax-induced antibodies’ ability to bind to more parts of the virus than infxn-induced Abs. BUT don’t know yet."
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1466480140305719299?s=20
I guess the video hasn't been, so it wouldn't be appropriate to show uncensored.
Secondly my counsellor says there are no aliens in the universe because all life in the universe comes from God’s consciousness so we are all technically the same whatever planet we are from.
Apologies if some of the stuff I post is just too damn heave for you to understand.
Plus, just a quirk of mine, but when I find someone writing Bollox for bollocks, I tend to assume I am dealing with a complete and utter qhont.
Apparently.
Not sure why I've got a stream of abuse in response.
Unlike @IshmaelZ
Edit: but that SLAB discrepancy is odd.
The original Physer variant was developed in a weekend, yes just a weekend, in January 2019. All it took was for the genetic code to be spliced in to the mRNA technology. ok maybe a bit more complex than that, but not a lot.
it then took 9 months to test and get approval of the vaccine. and a bit longer to ramp up production.
What will become the Omicron vaccine probably already exists, and Phser wording with the FDA and other regulators think and hope they can have it approved in 100 days.
I would like to take it now, and not wait till its been approved, I know there are risks, and we don't know exactly how effective it would be, but I would like to take it now, as to me that's an acceptable risk/reward payoff, I'm happy to sine a legal waver to explanate the makers of the vaccine, and I'm happy to pay for it with my own money.
Questions:
1. Should I have the right to take a medication like this that has not been approved?
2. If not why not?
3. Would anybody else join me if this was an option?
Starmer would do well to keep an eye on that.
This is a bit strange and something that the Independent investigation into social services that will now happen will doubtless look into.
@JuliaHB1
·
1h
I thought the whole point of the EU (or so EU leaders tell us) is that it's the bulwark against fascism and war returning to the continent of Europe...
Yet Italy, Austria, Germany and now France are going down the road to fascism, declaring war on their own people.
Terrifying.
===
Is mandatory vax fascism? Sounds like a good essay question for PPE at an Oxford college.
Some junior people will get the boot.
Some senior people will have to be let go, provided that higher paying, more responsible jobs can be found for them. Some assistance will be required to help them carry their golden goodbye settlements.....
Remember, there wasn't actually a fuel shortage before the panic buying. The few petrol stations that ran short were because of the change over into the new fuel type and the media then caused panic buying. The actual total fuel being delivered nationwide was still in excessive of demand before the fake news.
We will have to wait and see if again it is just people have rushed early to order it for Christmas rather than thinking arhhh I will sort it December. As I student, I worked in an M&S distribution centre and the orders for whole turkeys were sold out way in advance of Christmas.
(I think it is fine, Manchester United fans and players will moan like whores.)
Not sure you have proper Fascism without the quality uniforms.
Edit: at least I have plenty of wine, including 4 bottles of port. Though whether we get a pheasant for Xmas remains to be seen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/02/labours-main-union-backer-says-it-will-cut-political-funding
"She said she would instead put money into campaigns that would “set the pace” for Labour to follow. She pointed to the Scottish government’s proposal for a national care service, reforming social care, as an example of a cause that Unite would campaign for in the hope of influencing UK-wide policy."
https://twitter.com/primevideosport/status/1466505945127784462
Arsenal didn't do anything wrong, it was Fred that took out De Gea, and Smith-Rowe didn't even know about De Gea being on the floor when he hit the shot.
If De Gea is fit enough to continue, perhaps he could have remained alert to the danger there
https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1466506382975410178
Starmer can at least say he isn't in Sharon Graham's pocket.
I was genuinely offended by Len threatening to turn the taps off if he wasn't allowed to toss his tuppence worth of nonsense into the Labour Party policy pot.
The last time I paid Labour Party fees it felt like I was taking on most of Len's burden anyway and that was almost a decade ago.
Same source when asked to comment about the state of Party Finances muttered something about a Pot to Piss in and not having one!!
Without anything on the credit side to balance off those two, his reputation in history looks like being ignominious. And that’s before you get to the growing list of gaffes and embarrassments.
Besides I don't think any of them are actually talking about mandatory vaccines, instead they're talking about financial charges for the unvaccinated to pay for their healthcare. An unvaccinated tax is entirely reasonable, there's a reason that smokers have to pay surcharge taxes and its entirely reasonable to expect the unvaccinated to pay theirs too.