I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
It must look super weird from your perspective. The right keep bringing up something that they don't want changed, despite the left never mentioning it.
The right bring it up because they want to make it a wedge issue? I can see why they bring it up, to make it seem relevant.
It doesn't make it actually relevant.
Do you think Israel is relevant? Didn't stop the left of Labour bringing it up at every turn.
The bottom line: Managers with MBAs are the best at taking money from workers and not much else.
The findings are damning of business schools, business education, & business "optimizing" practices.
Not for those with an MBA though 'Among the 131 ranked full-time MBA programs that reported salary data to U.S. News in an annual survey, the overall average base salary plus bonus paid to 2021 graduates was $105,684.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
"A year on, far from offering closure, the prime minister’s team are being fined for breaking their own rules regularly and blatantly. The same rules that families across the country stuck with even when they suffered terribly as a consequence.
It’s crystal clear now that whilst the British public rose to the challenge of making enormous sacrifices to protect their loved ones and their communities, those at 10 Downing Street failed.
Frankly, bereaved families have seen enough. The PM should have resigned months ago over this. By dragging it out longer all he is doing is pouring more salt on the wounds of those who have already suffered so much."
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
Actually it is not a matter for me but I can tell you that all the female members of our family align with J K Rowling
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
Actually it is not a matter for me but I can tell you that all the female members of our family align with J K Rowling
I don't know what JK Rowling has said to be honest, I don't keep up to date with such things.
As to whether a woman can have a penis, as I said I think technically it is possible, although rare.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
It must look super weird from your perspective. The right keep bringing up something that they don't want changed, despite the left never mentioning it.
The right bring it up because they want to make it a wedge issue? I can see why they bring it up, to make it seem relevant.
It doesn't make it actually relevant.
Do you think Israel is relevant? Didn't stop the left of Labour bringing it up at every turn.
Can only make it a wedge issue if their side has a clear position, and the other side doesn't.
Which is what is happening. It doesn't mean the right started this, though: Labour's official policy is self-contradictory, and this is being noticed.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
It must look super weird from your perspective. The right keep bringing up something that they don't want changed, despite the left never mentioning it.
The right bring it up because they want to make it a wedge issue? I can see why they bring it up, to make it seem relevant.
It doesn't make it actually relevant.
Do you think Israel is relevant? Didn't stop the left of Labour bringing it up at every turn.
Can only make it a wedge issue if their side has a clear position, and the other side doesn't.
Which is what is happening. It doesn't mean the right started this, though: Labour's official policy is self-contradictory, and this is being noticed.
But the right did start it though, I don't see why this is controversial. It's politics.
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
The culture wars are coming almost exclusively from the left, not from the Tories.
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Coming exclusively from the left? Wut?
Well you get some limited fightback from the right, admittedly. But the right were perfectly happy with the culture as it was in, say, 2012. If someone comes along and tried to change your culture, and you say 'no', that doesn't make both sides equally culpable of fighting the culture wars. One side is fighting a culture war. The other is half-heartedly resisting it.
To me the idea of a culture 'war' was American and necessitated wedge issues to cleave the working classes (and increasingly low earning minorities) from the Democratic party. Admittedly the Democrats neglect of their core votes economic interests made it far too easy for Republican strategists.
As HYUFD says similar cultural division has now occurred in the UK although Labour still have the majority of lower income voters it is the older retired, or soon to be who had supported Labour that swing it for Johnson. Brexit was the perfect wedge to divide young from old for FPTP. While all the gender stuff keeps them riven.
Actually in 2019 the Tories won even those with an annual income under £20,000, 45% to 34% for Labour.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
Certainly I do.
I think this is what 99% of people would say? Certainly anyone I know would.
But then I don't see any difference between that and somebody getting my name wrong. I think it's bad manners and shows you either don't listen or don't care.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I think Cyclefree said earlier that Labour specifically intend to legislate on the trans issue?
It was in the 2019 Manifesto.
But note that the issue will be faced very shortly - long before the next election - as a result of the Scottish Bill to change the GRA in Scotland. This is because its consequences are not limited to Scotland. So Labour does not have the luxury of kicking this into the long grass and hoping it will go away.
The bottom line: Managers with MBAs are the best at taking money from workers and not much else.
The findings are damning of business schools, business education, & business "optimizing" practices.
What is interesting is the closed mindset it produces.
There is an interesting group in favour of the "unrealised income" tax stuff, that been talked of - professional company managers.
No, seriously. They see a world, where instead of the founders of companies getting squeezed out (properly) by institutional investors, they are actually keeping ownership.
I've listened to some hilarious tirades about how company X (ha) needs to be removed from the hands of the founder, and properly managed. As in trashed to get the shareholder returns up on a horizon of a year or two. And how it is despicable that "proper companies" have to compete with long termism and "excessive investment".
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
It must look super weird from your perspective. The right keep bringing up something that they don't want changed, despite the left never mentioning it.
The right bring it up because they want to make it a wedge issue? I can see why they bring it up, to make it seem relevant.
It doesn't make it actually relevant.
Do you think Israel is relevant? Didn't stop the left of Labour bringing it up at every turn.
Can only make it a wedge issue if their side has a clear position, and the other side doesn't.
Which is what is happening. It doesn't mean the right started this, though: Labour's official policy is self-contradictory, and this is being noticed.
Why did somebody mark this off topic? That's just rude.
Not that he will resign, but I bet if Boris did Zelensky would be awfully confused when he's told by Boris they won't be chatting every couple of days now.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
Quite - since when did JK Rowling. And our own Cyclefree f*** off and join the Tories?
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
It appears that the culture war is the last line of defence for the Tories.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
Quite - since when did JK Rowling. And our own Cyclefree f*** off and join the Tories?
You can become a Tory very easily, without even knowing it. Watch out everybody!
Let's get this right. What @CorrectHorseBattery wants is for Labour to be able to do what it wants in areas that "the public doesn't care about" without getting any scrutiny.
No, the public doesn't care about these issues, but only because most people don't realise what these extremists want to do. Sorry, but democracy involves scrutiny, and Labour need to get used to it.
Let's get this right. What @CorrectHorseBattery wants is for Labour to be able to do what it wants in areas that "the public doesn't care about" without getting any scrutiny.
No, the public doesn't care about these issues, but only because most people don't realise what these extremists want to do. Sorry, but democracy involves scrutiny, and Labour need to get used to it.
No I didn't say that. I said this isn't an issue that is relevant to most people.
I am happy to scrutinise their policies, just as I do the same for the Tories.
It appears that the culture war is the last line of defence for the Tories.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
They're going to need more than that surely?
I think they will need more. It will resonate quite a bit, but if things are bad, and they do look pretty bad and the party have been in power a long time now, then people can take stock and consider it won't be a huge deal for most people - or feel they can keep up the fight against such matters if Labour get in.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
Language has always changed. Stop complaining that it's still changing, or go back to using "thou/thine" or even "þou".
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
Let's get this right. What @CorrectHorseBattery wants is for Labour to be able to do what it wants in areas that "the public doesn't care about" without getting any scrutiny.
No, the public doesn't care about these issues, but only because most people don't realise what these extremists want to do. Sorry, but democracy involves scrutiny, and Labour need to get used to it.
Can people please stop marking reasonable posts off topic. We're having a debate here.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
It must look super weird from your perspective. The right keep bringing up something that they don't want changed, despite the left never mentioning it.
The right bring it up because they want to make it a wedge issue? I can see why they bring it up, to make it seem relevant.
It doesn't make it actually relevant.
Do you think Israel is relevant? Didn't stop the left of Labour bringing it up at every turn.
Can only make it a wedge issue if their side has a clear position, and the other side doesn't.
Which is what is happening. It doesn't mean the right started this, though: Labour's official policy is self-contradictory, and this is being noticed.
But the right did start it though, I don't see why this is controversial. It's politics.
No it didn't. The left - not the Labour Party specifically mind, but the left - is the side which wants to change the culture. The right wants the culture to be what it was before the current round of the culture wars started. There is one side which is trying to change things and one which is half-heartedly resisting that. It is the side which is trying to change things which started it.
In 1939, Germany was trying to change the map of Europe and Britain was trying to keep it as it was. I think we can all agree that the side which started the war was Germany.
It appears that the culture war is the last line of defence for the Tories.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
They're going to need more than that surely?
They need more than that
But it's all they have left that can't be attacked in simple words anyone can understand...
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
It’s about keeping sexually functional penises out of womens refuges and prisons.
For the very few people who want to transition, there is a long medical process to go through.
It's about how this hypothetical Tory leader is going to handle the "what is a woman?" question in a GE campaign.
Assuming that's how they reply, the interview continues -
"So is it Conservative policy to make a change of gender subject to radical surgery?"
To which the answer is "No - just a medical diagnosis of dysphoria and we will speed up the time to get that." Or "No - the current position is a fair balance between the right of those with dysphoria and others."
BTW have you yet noticed that that report you keep banging on about got it fundamentally wrong when it said that those wishing to change gender had to go before a panel and that this was degrading. There is no such panel. It is all done on paper.
A good answer. But our hypothetical not-so-clued-up Tory politician might blurt "yes", and the interviewer then goes with -
"So, you wish to make gender change even MORE difficult than it is today then? You wish to go backwards on this?"
Then we're off to the races. Boot on other foot.
My hunch btw is that most people incorrectly think gender change has to be linked to body change and I just wanted to see if this applied on here. From a few posts I've seen I think it maybe does.
The report? Well it's a panel - that's what it's called - which you communicate with and holds your fate in its hands. It's a report that deserves to be linked to occasionally since it's informative and it makes the case for the proposed GRA reforms that lie at the heart of this and are often buried under all the claim and counterclaim.
There's a good case against the reforms too. You make it often. But for anybody interested in the case for, it's a report worth reading.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
We all agree on that point.
The problems occur when we see men in women’s refuges and prisons, purely because they decide they want to call themselves women, and despite retaining functioning male genetalia.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
It must look super weird from your perspective. The right keep bringing up something that they don't want changed, despite the left never mentioning it.
The right bring it up because they want to make it a wedge issue? I can see why they bring it up, to make it seem relevant.
It doesn't make it actually relevant.
Do you think Israel is relevant? Didn't stop the left of Labour bringing it up at every turn.
Can only make it a wedge issue if their side has a clear position, and the other side doesn't.
Which is what is happening. It doesn't mean the right started this, though: Labour's official policy is self-contradictory, and this is being noticed.
But the right did start it though, I don't see why this is controversial. It's politics.
No it didn't. The left - not the Labour Party specifically mind, but the left - is the side which wants to change the culture. The right wants the culture to be what it was before the current round of the culture wars started. There is one side which is trying to change things and one which is half-heartedly resisting that. It is the side which is trying to change things which started it.
In 1939, Germany was trying to change the map of Europe and Britain was trying to keep it as it was. I think we can all agree that the side which started the war was Germany.
The Tories introduced gay marriage, that was changing culture?
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
Well I will call them them, but I won't be happy about it. Because it's linguistically horrible.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I most certainly would irrespective of my views on the whole subject. It is just polite and the world needs more politeness.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
We all agree on that point.
The problems occur when we see men in women’s refuges and prisons, purely because they decide they want to call themselves women, and despite retaining functioning male genetalia.
If somebody has completely "transitioned" in the sense they've received therapy, had their male organs removed etc where should they go?
A heatmap for @BartholomewRoberts which will please him regarding the unavoidable need for cars outside urban areas without decent public transport
It comes from a FOI request to the DVLA and the Department for Transport so the raw data should be somewhere but I can't find it and the person who posted the image didn't provide a link
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
Well I will call them them, but I won't be happy about it. Because it's linguistically horrible.
Why do people write such Apprentice-style self-aggrandising guff on their CVs? No you are not "An inspirational commercial leader with [ ] a sharp eye for detail" - you're coming to the headhunter saying the last 2 moves you made were shit and you want to backtrack and get some stability having fucked up your career path.
Probably because they have grown up watching the Apprentice.
It's because of the number of automated systems which scores CVs on the number of uses of each word. It isn't for the human reader.
The answer is to write the "guff" in a white font on a white background, so the automated system will see it, but a human won't.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
Language has always changed. Stop complaining that it's still changing, or go back to using "thou/thine" or even "þou".
I rather like thou/thine, to be honest.
Language is always changing, but that doesn't mean that change can go unchallenged.
Let's get this right. What @CorrectHorseBattery wants is for Labour to be able to do what it wants in areas that "the public doesn't care about" without getting any scrutiny.
No, the public doesn't care about these issues, but only because most people don't realise what these extremists want to do. Sorry, but democracy involves scrutiny, and Labour need to get used to it.
No I didn't say that. I said this isn't an issue that is relevant to most people.
I am happy to scrutinise their policies, just as I do the same for the Tories.
To be fair, it *might* become an issue - well issues really - that become relevant to most people. Not because the Express and GBeebies and Dorries et al make it so, but because the Labour front bench allow it to happen.
This is an area where they really do need to consult with Tony Blair. He was the master of "we're not doing God" and pivoting straight back onto crime and education.
The Tories won't be able to compete on services or the economy or prosperity by the next election because all will be in the toilet. So the fear of the prowling bepenised pervert will have to be THE issue.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
When this came up last time I pointed out that "you" is now both singular and plural and everyone got used to that.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I most certainly would irrespective of my views on the whole subject. It is just polite and the world needs more politeness.
This has been my experience with all of the people that this applies to. I haven't met a single person who wasn't polite or understanding even when I've got it wrong. That is how it should be, I think.
But then I think I take note because people are always getting my name wrong and it annoys me.
Let's get this right. What @CorrectHorseBattery wants is for Labour to be able to do what it wants in areas that "the public doesn't care about" without getting any scrutiny.
No, the public doesn't care about these issues, but only because most people don't realise what these extremists want to do. Sorry, but democracy involves scrutiny, and Labour need to get used to it.
No I didn't say that. I said this isn't an issue that is relevant to most people.
I am happy to scrutinise their policies, just as I do the same for the Tories.
There are a lots of things that don’t affect me personally. I don’t have children, so why should I care about education?
I’m a man, so why should I give two fucks about female only spaces?
It might surprise you, but people care about things that don’t directly affect them.
It appears that the culture war is the last line of defence for the Tories.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
They're going to need more than that surely?
Exactly,the point I made last week to Leon and a few others. It’s the economy that matters and living standards and @CorrectHorseBattery is right. This dooms the Tories unless solved.
Although your endless, unfunny, references to GBeebies, also feeds into the same culture wars. From the opposite side.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I most certainly would irrespective of my views on the whole subject. It is just polite and the world needs more politeness.
This has been my experience with all of the people that this applies to. I haven't met a single person who wasn't polite or understanding even when I've got it wrong. That is how it should be, I think.
But then I think I take note because people are always getting my name wrong and it annoys me.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
That's biologically illiterate. Your ranting about this subject is idiotic. Women can't have penises and men can't have vaginas. It's really no more complicated than that. A woman is an adult human female. Get that into your thick skull.
Well, it depends what you're talking about. Gender and sex are generally held to be distinct, albeit related. That someone can feel as though they should have been a woman and be born a biological male isn't controversial and forms the basis of gender dysmorphia. In my post I was referring to 'woman' or 'man' in terms of gender.
Biological sex is different, but can still be pretty complicated in edge cases. Intersex people do exist and often end up being raised as the gender they most closely identify with (or are identified with). Must a man have testicles? Surely not, is the answer. Must a man even be born with testicles, or even a penis? Again, biology tells us that it's not required. Vagina or vulvas for Women? Biology is weird and people can be born, present outwardly and be raised as girls and women without female gonads or genitals. On the point of biology, gender also likely has a biological component. Ben Barres, who was born a woman, believed a hormonal imbalance during gestation resulted in their own dysmorphia. I generally agree with Cyclefree on this issue, that sex based protections should receive a lot more attention in this debate. I suspect I would go a smidge further in that individuals who have fully transitioned and have lived for X amount of years should benefit from the sex based protections that the law affords (perhaps excluding some limited spheres).
The 'problem' is one of language, I believe. We need a word that includes gender distinctly. May I suggest 'Ladies' for people who identify as woman and 'Blokes' when talking about those identifying as men? Therefore, the answer to the question of whether a woman could have a penis could be 'Outside of intersex individuals, then no a woman does not have a penis.' BUT if someone asked if a Lady could have a penis? Well, you could answer that a lady never tells...
"Well, it depends what you're talking about. Gender and sex are generally held to be distinct, albeit related. "
By whom are Gender and Sex regarded as distinct? It is only up to a few years ago that they were considered the same. It is a very vocal and aggressive minority that is pushing the view the two are different,
On both sides of the debate the common understanding is that sex is biological (what you are, in your chromosomes) while gender is a social construct (who you feel you are in yourself). The debate is what weights should be applied to these different facets of people. The Trans rights activists argue that gender trumps sex, and that gender based rights trump sex based rights. Women’s rights activists argue that effectively some men are trying to roll back their hard won rights. If we only measure “gender” how are we to track progress (or not) in sexual equality?
I'm seeing more and more instances where definitions are important in this conversation. I understand that clitoral hypertrophy can cause difficulties at birth, but defects in the cortisol pathways are usually responsible. This results in an increased biosynthesis of androgens (congenital adrenal hyperplasia). The enlarged clitoris can be mistaken for a small penis, but it's not one). That's the reason I restricted myself to androgen insensItivity syndrome.
CAH is far more common (0.1% worldwide) and concerns the adrenals, not the testes directly.
Let's get this right. What @CorrectHorseBattery wants is for Labour to be able to do what it wants in areas that "the public doesn't care about" without getting any scrutiny.
No, the public doesn't care about these issues, but only because most people don't realise what these extremists want to do. Sorry, but democracy involves scrutiny, and Labour need to get used to it.
No I didn't say that. I said this isn't an issue that is relevant to most people.
I am happy to scrutinise their policies, just as I do the same for the Tories.
There are a lots of things that don’t affect me personally. I don’t have children, so why should I care about education?
I’m a man, so why should I give two fucks about female only spaces?
It might surprise you, but people care about things that don’t directly affect them.
That wasn't my point. It's not that people don't care about issues that don't directly impact them, it's that I don't perceive this to be issue that anyone really cares about. Do some people, yes. Obviously.
I'm very happy to have the debate here but only because I know this is in good faith, what I see and hear elsewhere is always self-defeating and bad faith arguing. And people switch off at that point, I've seen it.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
It’s about keeping sexually functional penises out of womens refuges and prisons.
For the very few people who want to transition, there is a long medical process to go through.
It's about how this hypothetical Tory leader is going to handle the "what is a woman?" question in a GE campaign.
Assuming that's how they reply, the interview continues -
"So is it Conservative policy to make a change of gender subject to radical surgery?"
To which the answer is "No - just a medical diagnosis of dysphoria and we will speed up the time to get that." Or "No - the current position is a fair balance between the right of those with dysphoria and others."
BTW have you yet noticed that that report you keep banging on about got it fundamentally wrong when it said that those wishing to change gender had to go before a panel and that this was degrading. There is no such panel. It is all done on paper.
A good answer. But our hypothetical not-so-clued-up Tory politician might blurt "yes", and the interviewer then goes with -
"So, you wish to make gender change even MORE difficult than it is today then? You wish to go backwards on this?"
Then we're off to the races. Boot on other foot.
My hunch btw is that most people incorrectly think gender change has to be linked to body change and I just wanted to see if this applied on here. From a few posts I've seen I think it maybe does.
The report? Well it's a panel - that's what it's called - which you communicate with and holds your fate in its hands. It's a report that deserves to be linked to occasionally since it's informative and it makes the case for the proposed GRA reforms that lie at the heart of this and are often buried under all the claim and counterclaim.
There's a good case against the reforms too. You make it often. But for anybody interested in the case for, it's a report worth reading.
Honestly, the Tories could explicitly say they want to make transitioning much more difficult than currently, and it would lose them maybe a tiny handful of votes. Might even be be a net positive (which is not to say that they should, or that I hope they, do that). The idea that more coverage could ever be bad for them is just wrong.
I think you have your head in the sand on this. You keep talking about the GRA as though it's the central focus of the argument. It's not. The activists on this issue want to go much, much further, and view the GRA as a long-overdue first step, not the end. A decent part of why it's being opposed is because it's the thin end of the wedge.
It appears that the culture war is the last line of defence for the Tories.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
They're going to need more than that surely?
Exactly,the point I made last week to Leon and a few others. It’s the economy that matters and living standards and @CorrectHorseBattery is right. This dooms the Tories unless solved.
Although your endless, unfunny, references to GBeebies, also feeds into the same culture wars. From the opposite side.
I find myself agreeing with most of your posts @Taz. And you're always polite too.
Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said don't be drawn into these pointless wars. Starmer and co should listen
Starmer is listening, but he can't prevent journalists asking these questions, despite there being matters of much more pressing interest and importance that Starmer would rather discuss.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
We all agree on that point.
The problems occur when we see men in women’s refuges and prisons, purely because they decide they want to call themselves women, and despite retaining functioning male genetalia.
If somebody has completely "transitioned" in the sense they've received therapy, had their male organs removed etc where should they go?
If someone has completely transitioned, then they are a woman in my mind, yes.
If someone says that they are a woman because they say they are a woman, and need to go to the women’s prison despite a conviction for rape (to give one recent example of a court case), then yes, I have a problem with that.
The starting point for this discussion is the legislation proposed by the government in Scotland, which enshrines such self-identification in law.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I most certainly would irrespective of my views on the whole subject. It is just polite and the world needs more politeness.
This has been my experience with all of the people that this applies to. I haven't met a single person who wasn't polite or understanding even when I've got it wrong. That is how it should be, I think.
But then I think I take note because people are always getting my name wrong and it annoys me.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
"Major debate"? Where, on Twitter? On PB?
Well, let's see - in the courts in the following cases:
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
As a languages graduate the language thing is the bit that irritates me the most. But I do accept that probably language is part of the issue. If we had separate words for biological sex which is fairly binary - man and woman, and gender(male female others) then the language mistakes often made unintentionally would not be so prevalent.
As I tried to say well upthread I don't care how people want to live their lives, what I do find unacceptable is that there seems to have been a twisting of language which is no longer instinctive yet people can be misrepresented as being bigoted in some way by making mistakes.
And I always fall back on this but if you went into pubs up and down the land, the patrons would be equally perplexed with the question can a woman have a penis? It would more likely be perceived as the start of a joke rather than an issue that occupies significant number of politicians.
Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said don't be drawn into these pointless wars. Starmer and co should listen
Starmer is listening, but he can't prevent journalists asking these questions, despite there being matters of much more pressing interest and importance that Starmer would rather discuss.
He needs to get better at moving the questions on then.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
We all agree on that point.
The problems occur when we see men in women’s refuges and prisons, purely because they decide they want to call themselves women, and despite retaining functioning male genetalia.
If somebody has completely "transitioned" in the sense they've received therapy, had their male organs removed etc where should they go?
That's fine, no argument. But for people who are biologically male? The whole point in a women's refuge is that they are escaping violence from men. My mate Lauren is most definitely a trans rights advocate but as a biologically male trans woman even she draws the line there.
Again again its all about your rights not trampling over other people's rights. And there is a difference between "I watch GBeebies and I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY" and women who have the right to both be safe and *feel* safe.
I actually think this silly obsession with trans people/the GRA (I generally don't care TBH and think trans people's wishes should be respected even if I understand some concerns about regulations in sport) is playing into Sturgeon's hands more than the Tories TBH.
Rather than answer questions on ferries, health, education etc, Sturgeon gets to talk about identity politics all the time with identity politics being more up her street, regardless of whether or not the GRA goes through.
Her job is made even easier by certain crackpot ALBA representatives smearing SNP MSPs as 'paedophile apologists'.
Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said don't be drawn into these pointless wars. Starmer and co should listen
Starmer is listening, but he can't prevent journalists asking these questions, despite there being matters of much more pressing interest and importance that Starmer would rather discuss.
What Blair really means is “nip this in the bud” and rule out self-ID.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I most certainly would irrespective of my views on the whole subject. It is just polite and the world needs more politeness.
This has been my experience with all of the people that this applies to. I haven't met a single person who wasn't polite or understanding even when I've got it wrong. That is how it should be, I think.
But then I think I take note because people are always getting my name wrong and it annoys me.
I have a first name which sounds like a surname and a surname which is often a first name. If I had a pound for every time ..... and so on since I was about five.
However, on one occasion when someone got it wrong it nearly cost me my life.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
We all agree on that point.
The problems occur when we see men in women’s refuges and prisons, purely because they decide they want to call themselves women, and despite retaining functioning male genetalia.
If somebody has completely "transitioned" in the sense they've received therapy, had their male organs removed etc where should they go?
If someone has completely transitioned, then they are a woman in my mind, yes.
If someone says that they are a woman because they say they are a woman, and need to go to the women’s prison despite a conviction for rape (to give one recent example of a court case), then yes, I have a problem with that.
The starting point for this discussion is the legislation proposed by the government in Scotland, which enshrines such self-identification in law.
So on the first point, this is controversial to some people - and when I have been unfortunate to listen to LBC, I have heard this point made. So you consider this settled as do I - but I don't think it is by the people who think these issues are important (which I maintain is a small number).
On the second point, the amount of time it takes a person to transition seems to be often dictated by how slow it is for the NHS and others to actually perform the treatment. Years I think, so what are these people to do, if they feel like a woman but they're waiting for years, do they just lump it?
I am asking these questions in good faith, I don't have a solid set of views on it, if I am honest.
It appears that the culture war is the last line of defence for the Tories.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
They're going to need more than that surely?
Exactly,the point I made last week to Leon and a few others. It’s the economy that matters and living standards and @CorrectHorseBattery is right. This dooms the Tories unless solved.
Although your endless, unfunny, references to GBeebies, also feeds into the same culture wars. From the opposite side.
Why? I'm not mocking them because they are right wing, I'm mocking them as a Journalism graduate because they are crap, just as they joyfully appalling L!ve TV and the News Bunny was a generation before. I admire their sheer balls in putting out something as appalling as that and claiming to be news.
It appears that the culture war is the last line of defence for the Tories.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
They're going to need more than that surely?
It depends whether Labour adopt a politically suicidal position on it.
What's your own view on teenage girls being encouraged to "yeet those teets" in order to validate their perceived gender identity?
But that 99% get really pissed off when a party is dedicating time to fighting gender/sex wars when they really want to hear about what they will do for THEM in the cost of living crisis.
Works for both parties, though.
I can honestly say which toilets our local Conservative activists use is not a hot topic....
....just as long as they can use them often!
Quite so. Just thinking in terms of how going on and on about toilets and statues might not go down too well when the Conservative Party is being blamed for the current economic situation, at least partly fairly (NI rise for the workers, pampering of rich southern houseowning pensioners and their middle aged children anyone?).
Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said don't be drawn into these pointless wars. Starmer and co should listen
If you are going to quote him, you had better be accurate. You're not.
This is what he said -
"But this is a different era, he concedes, with new problems. When he was leader, there were no arguments about sex and gender, trans rights and toppling statues. Starmer will have to go into battle over the culture wars, he says. “The polls might say voters don’t care but if you dig a little deeper, what they are really saying is we don’t like all this stuff that is being shoved at us.”
I assume he is going to cite the third way again, but Blair comes down firmly on the side of the author JK Rowling. “They [voters] don’t want a situation where women can’t talk about being women. I have this conversation quite often with Labour people and I know their inclination is to walk round this issue, but I am telling you to go right into it and resolve it in a way that makes it absolutely clear where you stand. That is how to shut down the Tories on it.”
He is risking the ire of the trans lobby now. “Of course, we shouldn’t be transphobic and we should have equal rights for trans people. But equal rights doesn’t mean you can’t use the phrase ‘pregnant woman’. If you went to Sedgefield and had that conversation, they would think you were bonkers.”
"Starmer will have to go into battle ....go right into it and resolve it in a way that makes it absolutely clear where you stand...."
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I most certainly would irrespective of my views on the whole subject. It is just polite and the world needs more politeness.
This has been my experience with all of the people that this applies to. I haven't met a single person who wasn't polite or understanding even when I've got it wrong. That is how it should be, I think.
But then I think I take note because people are always getting my name wrong and it annoys me.
I have a first name which sounds like a surname and a surname which is often a first name. If I had a pound for every time ..... and so on since I was about five.
However, on one occasion when someone got it wrong it nearly cost me my life.
I am sure you must find it frustrating OKC, even if you get used to it as I have. I mostly just spell out my name now, even if it sounds condescending, them getting my name wrong constantly is also condescending.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
This is a fair point but I suppose my point is that I don't mind what somebody chooses to be called. If they're polite I'm polite.
Well I will call them them, but I won't be happy about it. Because it's linguistically horrible.
Why do you care so much?
Nobody likes having to force language into inelegant contortions, do they? This isn't a trans thing - I find it just as clunky and awkward when using 'they' to refer to a non-specific individual e.g,, to pick an example out of thin air "pick a player and give them a card" - it's the disagreement between 'a player' and 'them'. It makes me wince in the same way that hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'uninterested' does. But happily while I hear that construction its not one I'm ever forced to make.
And yes, @mwadams et al, I know there is a precedent for using language this way - I just don't like it, that's all.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
"Major debate"? Where, on Twitter? On PB?
Well, let's see - in the courts in the following cases:
There are other cases being prepared which will go to court soon.
Is this "major" enough for you?
Not Mr HorseBattery, but there is a strand of thought which is that this issue is simultaneously no big deal and only 'debated' by those pushing a culture war etc, that it is not a major debate, but also that it is a vital and necessary move of critical importance which is why it must be done with all haste, no matter the concerns expressed by others.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
"Major debate"? Where, on Twitter? On PB?
Well, let's see - in the courts in the following cases:
There are other cases being prepared which will go to court soon.
Is this "major" enough for you?
I think the other thing is the cancellation of JK Rowling - I havent met anyone in person who doesn't agree with her although I have probably only talked about it with my mum, mother in law and wife, and a load of blokes at the pub she is such a prominent figure that it provokes debate, as does the sport issues when women with male bodies / musculoskeletal development are winning against women who have always been women. Again I have never heard anyone support them, in fact when that white woman wanted to be black, and a black activist she got pilloried - i struggle to see how this is different. I am sure she felt black, felt a strong affinity to black people, wished when had been born black. It didn't make her black at the end of the day.
Would just like to make a point, weird how @Big_G_NorthWales didn't bring up Sunak making a mess of the same question.
I wonder why?
You can try to deflect the issue but the problem is Starmer's and labour's as they intend changing legislation
Answer the point. Why didn't you bring it up when Sunak was asked and also made a mess?
Others here ask in good faith, you ask as a Tory trying to do politics. Which is fine - but it is pointless arguing with you so I will leave our conversation here.
And I will remember this when you "waiver" and claim you might vote something other than Tory next time.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
Yep there's a lot of bad faith comms around this one.
I'm happy with either "adult human female" or (my pref) "adult of the female gender" as an answer but the question is being set as a trap for Labour atm and my point is to show how it can also be set as a trap for the Tories.
It's probably a good issue for them, the Tories, but it's not risk free.
So, if you and I are both happy with “adult human female”, why do so many politicians tie themselves in knots to avoid that phrase?
Because of the follow ups. The question is being asked to trap not to enlighten.
It leads to 2 tabloid gotchas, depending whether you go with "adult human female" or "adult of female gender".
"Labour say women can have a penis!"
"Tories wish to erase Trans people!"
ATM, just the Labour one has traction. I'm trying to show how the other one could have too.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
That depends on what they want others to be obliged to do in response, irrespective of any other considerations. If people want to call themselves whatever they like, and dress and act however they like, more power to them I say. But how far does the extend on others?
If somebody politely asks me that they be called they, I'll oblige, that seems like good manners to me? Do you agree?
I most certainly would irrespective of my views on the whole subject. It is just polite and the world needs more politeness.
This has been my experience with all of the people that this applies to. I haven't met a single person who wasn't polite or understanding even when I've got it wrong. That is how it should be, I think.
But then I think I take note because people are always getting my name wrong and it annoys me.
I have a first name which sounds like a surname and a surname which is often a first name. If I had a pound for every time ..... and so on since I was about five.
However, on one occasion when someone got it wrong it nearly cost me my life.
People here are quite sensible on this - and I am listening to both sides - but I think if you asked the average person the views on trans rights are not themselves settled. We're arguing to what extent but I think the people that get riled up a lot are not sure about trans rights in general.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
That's biologically illiterate. Your ranting about this subject is idiotic. Women can't have penises and men can't have vaginas. It's really no more complicated than that. A woman is an adult human female. Get that into your thick skull.
Well, it depends what you're talking about. Gender and sex are generally held to be distinct, albeit related. That someone can feel as though they should have been a woman and be born a biological male isn't controversial and forms the basis of gender dysmorphia. In my post I was referring to 'woman' or 'man' in terms of gender.
Biological sex is different, but can still be pretty complicated in edge cases. Intersex people do exist and often end up being raised as the gender they most closely identify with (or are identified with). Must a man have testicles? Surely not, is the answer. Must a man even be born with testicles, or even a penis? Again, biology tells us that it's not required. Vagina or vulvas for Women? Biology is weird and people can be born, present outwardly and be raised as girls and women without female gonads or genitals. On the point of biology, gender also likely has a biological component. Ben Barres, who was born a woman, believed a hormonal imbalance during gestation resulted in their own dysmorphia. I generally agree with Cyclefree on this issue, that sex based protections should receive a lot more attention in this debate. I suspect I would go a smidge further in that individuals who have fully transitioned and have lived for X amount of years should benefit from the sex based protections that the law affords (perhaps excluding some limited spheres).
The 'problem' is one of language, I believe. We need a word that includes gender distinctly. May I suggest 'Ladies' for people who identify as woman and 'Blokes' when talking about those identifying as men? Therefore, the answer to the question of whether a woman could have a penis could be 'Outside of intersex individuals, then no a woman does not have a penis.' BUT if someone asked if a Lady could have a penis? Well, you could answer that a lady never tells...
"Well, it depends what you're talking about. Gender and sex are generally held to be distinct, albeit related. "
By whom are Gender and Sex regarded as distinct? It is only up to a few years ago that they were considered the same. It is a very vocal and aggressive minority that is pushing the view the two are different,
On both sides of the debate the common understanding is that sex is biological (what you are, in your chromosomes) while gender is a social construct (who you feel you are in yourself). The debate is what weights should be applied to these different facets of people. The Trans rights activists argue that gender trumps sex, and that gender based rights trump sex based rights. Women’s rights activists argue that effectively some men are trying to roll back their hard won rights. If we only measure “gender” how are we to track progress (or not) in sexual equality?
People who had surgery to change their sexual organs were called transsexual, at least in the past. Is transsexual used at all now? Is it used interchangeably with transgender, or did they have distinct meanings?
For a campaign that places such an emphasis on language it seems to be very imprecise in its use of language.
Is there a distinction in law between sex and gender?
In my experience of databases, the two are used interchangeably, but it's interesting that people can obtain a "gender recognition certificate", but that the Equality Act prevents discrimination on the basis of "sex".
Should we actually record a separate sex and gender for everyone (if we can be bothered)?
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
I don't agree on the thumping majority aspect if the economy is in the toilet.
But as to whether women can have penises, technically yes as I said. Not that that is how you should answer that question. But we should be precise.
Frankly if somebody wants to be a they that's fine, I don't...care? Is this controversial?
It's not fine if you're a pedant. Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken. 'It' sounds a bit pejorative. 'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
As a languages graduate the language thing is the bit that irritates me the most. But I do accept that probably language is part of the issue. If we had separate words for biological sex which is fairly binary - man and woman, and gender(male female others) then the language mistakes often made unintentionally would not be so prevalent.
As I tried to say well upthread I don't care how people want to live their lives, what I do find unacceptable is that there seems to have been a twisting of language which is no longer instinctive yet people can be misrepresented as being bigoted in some way by making mistakes.
And I always fall back on this but if you went into pubs up and down the land, the patrons would be equally perplexed with the question can a woman have a penis? It would more likely be perceived as the start of a joke rather than an issue that occupies significant number of politicians.
I think this is a big part of many people only casually aware of these issues being annoyed when the sillier cases get brought up. Good people in the debate don't act like such mistakes are terrible, most people don't want be rude and are willing to change how they express things if aware something is becoming less acceptable, but many more do not do that. It is a crusade, and crusades attract arseholes and create arseholes, even if the overall goals were not terrible.
Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said don't be drawn into these pointless wars. Starmer and co should listen
If you are going to quote him, you had better be accurate. You're not.
This is what he said -
"But this is a different era, he concedes, with new problems. When he was leader, there were no arguments about sex and gender, trans rights and toppling statues. Starmer will have to go into battle over the culture wars, he says. “The polls might say voters don’t care but if you dig a little deeper, what they are really saying is we don’t like all this stuff that is being shoved at us.”
I assume he is going to cite the third way again, but Blair comes down firmly on the side of the author JK Rowling. “They [voters] don’t want a situation where women can’t talk about being women. I have this conversation quite often with Labour people and I know their inclination is to walk round this issue, but I am telling you to go right into it and resolve it in a way that makes it absolutely clear where you stand. That is how to shut down the Tories on it.”
He is risking the ire of the trans lobby now. “Of course, we shouldn’t be transphobic and we should have equal rights for trans people. But equal rights doesn’t mean you can’t use the phrase ‘pregnant woman’. If you went to Sedgefield and had that conversation, they would think you were bonkers.”
"Starmer will have to go into battle ....go right into it and resolve it in a way that makes it absolutely clear where you stand...."
Tony Blair's hits the nail on the head - if you go into Sedgefield and talk like that people will think you are bonkers. Unfortunately too many in Labour live in London, or live there is spirit on twitter. The Tories will be quick to exploit this in the next election - in the last 2 elections the party who was furthest away from the London position won. The problem is the unions used to filter this stuff out but now they are just as signed up probably down to twitter
Is gender confirmed as a social construct, I thought this was also debated but perhaps I am wrong.
Confirmed by whom...? It is a social construct though. I have man bits but I choose to be "male" which absolutely is a construct with different cultures having very different takes on what being a man means in terms of how they act and interact.
Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said don't be drawn into these pointless wars. Starmer and co should listen
Starmer is listening, but he can't prevent journalists asking these questions, despite there being matters of much more pressing interest and importance that Starmer would rather discuss.
He needs to get better at moving the questions on then.
He does, because the tactic some employ is to get affronted at being asked, and that will not work in the short term. That 'I'm not a biologist' answer by the Supreme Court nominee may have been the best approach for her to take in that context, but people will keep pushing the question even to non biologists.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Decent chance it also splits off a meaningful proportion of the Labour ethnic minority vote; we saw in Birmingham a few years back just how badly these issues play out with them.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Question. Your red wall voter will be worse off and suffering worse services and paying higher taxes. Is "that woman has a cock" really enough to make them vote for more of the same?
I'm asking because I see it as a strategy. But as a red waller I don't see how you persuade people to override their daily issues and vote based on fear of the ladyboy.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
It’s about keeping sexually functional penises out of womens refuges and prisons.
For the very few people who want to transition, there is a long medical process to go through.
It's about how this hypothetical Tory leader is going to handle the "what is a woman?" question in a GE campaign.
Assuming that's how they reply, the interview continues -
"So is it Conservative policy to make a change of gender subject to radical surgery?"
To which the answer is "No - just a medical diagnosis of dysphoria and we will speed up the time to get that." Or "No - the current position is a fair balance between the right of those with dysphoria and others."
BTW have you yet noticed that that report you keep banging on about got it fundamentally wrong when it said that those wishing to change gender had to go before a panel and that this was degrading. There is no such panel. It is all done on paper.
A good answer. But our hypothetical not-so-clued-up Tory politician might blurt "yes", and the interviewer then goes with -
"So, you wish to make gender change even MORE difficult than it is today then? You wish to go backwards on this?"
Then we're off to the races. Boot on other foot.
My hunch btw is that most people incorrectly think gender change has to be linked to body change and I just wanted to see if this applied on here. From a few posts I've seen I think it maybe does.
The report? Well it's a panel - that's what it's called - which you communicate with and holds your fate in its hands. It's a report that deserves to be linked to occasionally since it's informative and it makes the case for the proposed GRA reforms that lie at the heart of this and are often buried under all the claim and counterclaim.
There's a good case against the reforms too. You make it often. But for anybody interested in the case for, it's a report worth reading.
There is no degrading appearance and interview before a panel quizzing a person on whether they are "sufficiently female" which is what some TRAs have claimed. It is a flat out lie. A report which does not understand the current process loses a fair amount of credibility.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Decent chance it also splits off a meaningful proportion of the Labour ethnic minority vote; we saw in Birmingham a few years back just how badly these issues play out with them.
Hasn't Labour recovered and improved it's already strong position amongst ethnic minority voters in recent years? If so then thus far this debate doesn't seem to have impacted there significantly.
I'm reluctant to join the trans debate, but for what it's worth, here goes. Of course women should have safe spaces, and I'm not in favour of making self-ID straightforward. These are complex issues, but I reckon I'm on the sensible left on these. I'm not far apart from JK Rowling, though I think she could express herself more sensitively.
But this is what I really think. The risk to women from men who 'clam' to have become women is real, but fairly minor, and needs sorting out. But it pales into insignificance when compared to the risk that women face every day from proper 'masculine' men through low-level abuse, violence, rape and worse. Think Sarah Everard, the sisters murdered in North London, the misogynistic Met culture, and then multiply many, many times to account for the violence and intimidation faced by many women from 'toxic masculinity', for want of a better phrase.
So, I'd be more convinced by those PBers on here showing their deep concern about the risk to women from 'trans' men if they showed the same concern for women subjected to everyday abuse from 'non-trans' men. A few do, but many don't.
And finally, this is my answer for the Labour Party. Insist on changing the debate to the generic one of violence against women, of which the risk from self-certified trans men is but a tiny subset that needs resolving through a clear policy.
Comments
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
It doesn't make it actually relevant.
Do you think Israel is relevant? Didn't stop the left of Labour bringing it up at every turn.
At the 10 MBA programs where grads received the highest compensation, which are all among the top 15 highest-ranked programs in the 2023 U.S. News Best Business Schools rankings, the overall average base salary and signing bonus was $175,789.'
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/mba-salary-jobs#:~:text=What an MBA Degree Is,the average bonus was $19,461.
"A year on, far from offering closure, the prime minister’s team are being fined for breaking their own rules regularly and blatantly. The same rules that families across the country stuck with even when they suffered terribly as a consequence.
It’s crystal clear now that whilst the British public rose to the challenge of making enormous sacrifices to protect their loved ones and their communities, those at 10 Downing Street failed.
Frankly, bereaved families have seen enough. The PM should have resigned months ago over this. By dragging it out longer all he is doing is pouring more salt on the wounds of those who have already suffered so much."
As to whether a woman can have a penis, as I said I think technically it is possible, although rare.
Which is what is happening. It doesn't mean the right started this, though: Labour's official policy is self-contradictory, and this is being noticed.
So in my experience, an MBA will lead to high wages
The age divide though was vast, the Tories won 67% of over 70s while Labour won 56% of 18 to 24s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
But then I don't see any difference between that and somebody getting my name wrong. I think it's bad manners and shows you either don't listen or don't care.
But note that the issue will be faced very shortly - long before the next election - as a result of the Scottish Bill to change the GRA in Scotland. This is because its consequences are not limited to Scotland. So Labour does not have the luxury of kicking this into the long grass and hoping it will go away.
There is an interesting group in favour of the "unrealised income" tax stuff, that been talked of - professional company managers.
No, seriously. They see a world, where instead of the founders of companies getting squeezed out (properly) by institutional investors, they are actually keeping ownership.
I've listened to some hilarious tirades about how company X (ha) needs to be removed from the hands of the founder, and properly managed. As in trashed to get the shareholder returns up on a horizon of a year or two. And how it is despicable that "proper companies" have to compete with long termism and "excessive investment".
Because they is plural.
The English language used to have a word for third-person non-gender-specific. It was 'he'. Which was a sub-optimal situation for several reasons. We need another one. But 'they' is taken.
'It' sounds a bit pejorative.
'Xe' is unpronounceable and also sounds like xe is being deliberately awkward.
Economy in bits? People clearly worse off? Services in the toilet? Don't worry about all of those things, look here's a report on GBeebies about how Starmer supports all these pervo faghags with penises who are out to assault your wives and daughters in the changing room. Vote Conservative.
They're going to need more than that surely?
*substitute Tory for Communist above.
No, the public doesn't care about these issues, but only because most people don't realise what these extremists want to do. Sorry, but democracy involves scrutiny, and Labour need to get used to it.
I am happy to scrutinise their policies, just as I do the same for the Tories.
Do they (ahem) think they're plurals?
The left - not the Labour Party specifically mind, but the left - is the side which wants to change the culture. The right wants the culture to be what it was before the current round of the culture wars started.
There is one side which is trying to change things and one which is half-heartedly resisting that.
It is the side which is trying to change things which started it.
In 1939, Germany was trying to change the map of Europe and Britain was trying to keep it as it was. I think we can all agree that the side which started the war was Germany.
What do you call them instead?
But it's all they have left that can't be attacked in simple words anyone can understand...
"So, you wish to make gender change even MORE difficult than it is today then? You wish to go backwards on this?"
Then we're off to the races. Boot on other foot.
My hunch btw is that most people incorrectly think gender change has to be linked to body change and I just wanted to see if this applied on here. From a few posts I've seen I think it maybe does.
The report? Well it's a panel - that's what it's called - which you communicate with and holds your fate in its hands. It's a report that deserves to be linked to occasionally since it's informative and it makes the case for the proposed GRA reforms that lie at the heart of this and are often buried under all the claim and counterclaim.
There's a good case against the reforms too. You make it often. But for anybody interested in the case for, it's a report worth reading.
Here it is -
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8329/documents/84728/default/
The problems occur when we see men in women’s refuges and prisons, purely because they decide they want to call themselves women, and despite retaining functioning male genetalia.
It comes from a FOI request to the DVLA and the Department for Transport so the raw data should be somewhere but I can't find it and the person who posted the image didn't provide a link
Language is always changing, but that doesn't mean that change can go unchallenged.
This is an area where they really do need to consult with Tony Blair. He was the master of "we're not doing God" and pivoting straight back onto crime and education.
The Tories won't be able to compete on services or the economy or prosperity by the next election because all will be in the toilet. So the fear of the prowling bepenised pervert will have to be THE issue.
There's a lovely OED article about it. https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
I know there are a small subset of Brits who are fanatically loyal royalists, but are even they still getting out the bunting and flags for Andrew?
Even if they did, you imagine he would be incredibly rude and dismissive about them out of earshot.
I wonder if the welcoming graffiti in St. Helena is still there?
But then I think I take note because people are always getting my name wrong and it annoys me.
I’m a man, so why should I give two fucks about female only spaces?
It might surprise you, but people care about things that don’t directly affect them.
Although your endless, unfunny, references to GBeebies, also feeds into the same culture wars. From the opposite side.
CAH is far more common (0.1% worldwide) and concerns the adrenals, not the testes directly.
I'm very happy to have the debate here but only because I know this is in good faith, what I see and hear elsewhere is always self-defeating and bad faith arguing. And people switch off at that point, I've seen it.
I think you have your head in the sand on this. You keep talking about the GRA as though it's the central focus of the argument. It's not. The activists on this issue want to go much, much further, and view the GRA as a long-overdue first step, not the end. A decent part of why it's being opposed is because it's the thin end of the wedge.
If someone says that they are a woman because they say they are a woman, and need to go to the women’s prison despite a conviction for rape (to give one recent example of a court case), then yes, I have a problem with that.
The starting point for this discussion is the legislation proposed by the government in Scotland, which enshrines such self-identification in law.
Or IncorrectHorseBattery as I am also known
1. https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2020-0081.html - the Elan- Cane case in the Supreme Court.
2. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Miller-v-College-of-Policing-judgment-201221.pdf - the Harry Miller case in the Court of Appeal.
3. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Bell-v-Tavistock-judgment-170921.pdf - the Keira Bell case in the Court of Appeal, now going to the Supreme Court.
4.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6149eb48d3bf7f05ac396f79/Ms_S_Appleby__vs___Tavistock_and_Portman_NHS_Foundation_Trust.pdf - the Sonia Appleby whistleblower case before the Employment Tribunal.
5.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf - the Forstater case before the Employment Appeal Tribunal which established that gender critical beliefs fell within the category of "belief" protected by the Equality Act. Her claim for compensation has just been heard by a Tribunal and judgment is awaited later this spring
6. The Rosario Sanchez case against Bristol University - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/08/bristol-student-tells-court-she-faced-intimidation-from-trans-rights-activists.
7. The Marion Millar case in Scotland - https://news.stv.tv/scotland/crown-office-drops-hate-crime-charge-against-feminist-marion-millar.
8. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html - about whether transwomen with a male body can be housed in womens' prisons.
There are other cases being prepared which will go to court soon.
Is this "major" enough for you?
As I tried to say well upthread I don't care how people want to live their lives, what I do find unacceptable is that there seems to have been a twisting of language which is no longer instinctive yet people can be misrepresented as being bigoted in some way by making mistakes.
And I always fall back on this but if you went into pubs up and down the land, the patrons would be equally perplexed with the question can a woman have a penis? It would more likely be perceived as the start of a joke rather than an issue that occupies significant number of politicians.
I wonder why?
Again again its all about your rights not trampling over other people's rights. And there is a difference between "I watch GBeebies and I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY" and women who have the right to both be safe and *feel* safe.
Rather than answer questions on ferries, health, education etc, Sturgeon gets to talk about identity politics all the time with identity politics being more up her street, regardless of whether or not the GRA goes through.
Her job is made even easier by certain crackpot ALBA representatives smearing SNP MSPs as 'paedophile apologists'.
If I had a pound for every time ..... and so on since I was about five.
However, on one occasion when someone got it wrong it nearly cost me my life.
On the second point, the amount of time it takes a person to transition seems to be often dictated by how slow it is for the NHS and others to actually perform the treatment. Years I think, so what are these people to do, if they feel like a woman but they're waiting for years, do they just lump it?
I am asking these questions in good faith, I don't have a solid set of views on it, if I am honest.
What's your own view on teenage girls being encouraged to "yeet those teets" in order to validate their perceived gender identity?
This is what he said -
"But this is a different era, he concedes, with new problems. When he was leader, there were no arguments about sex and gender, trans rights and toppling statues. Starmer will have to go into battle over the culture wars, he says. “The polls might say voters don’t care but if you dig a little deeper, what they are really saying is we don’t like all this stuff that is being shoved at us.”
I assume he is going to cite the third way again, but Blair comes down firmly on the side of the author JK Rowling. “They [voters] don’t want a situation where women can’t talk about being women. I have this conversation quite often with Labour people and I know their inclination is to walk round this issue, but I am telling you to go right into it and resolve it in a way that makes it absolutely clear where you stand. That is how to shut down the Tories on it.”
He is risking the ire of the trans lobby now. “Of course, we shouldn’t be transphobic and we should have equal rights for trans people. But equal rights doesn’t mean you can’t use the phrase ‘pregnant woman’. If you went to Sedgefield and had that conversation, they would think you were bonkers.”
"Starmer will have to go into battle ....go right into it and resolve it in a way that makes it absolutely clear where you stand...."
Hope you are keeping well.
It makes me wince in the same way that hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'uninterested' does. But happily while I hear that construction its not one I'm ever forced to make.
And yes, @mwadams et al, I know there is a precedent for using language this way - I just don't like it, that's all.
Others here ask in good faith, you ask as a Tory trying to do politics. Which is fine - but it is pointless arguing with you so I will leave our conversation here.
And I will remember this when you "waiver" and claim you might vote something other than Tory next time.
Good day.
It leads to 2 tabloid gotchas, depending whether you go with "adult human female" or "adult of female gender".
"Labour say women can have a penis!"
"Tories wish to erase Trans people!"
ATM, just the Labour one has traction. I'm trying to show how the other one could have too.
For a campaign that places such an emphasis on language it seems to be very imprecise in its use of language.
Is there a distinction in law between sex and gender?
In my experience of databases, the two are used interchangeably, but it's interesting that people can obtain a "gender recognition certificate", but that the Equality Act prevents discrimination on the basis of "sex".
Should we actually record a separate sex and gender for everyone (if we can be bothered)?
But as to whether women can have penises, technically yes as I said. Not that that is how you should answer that question. But we should be precise.
I'm asking because I see it as a strategy. But as a red waller I don't see how you persuade people to override their daily issues and vote based on fear of the ladyboy.
But this is what I really think. The risk to women from men who 'clam' to have become women is real, but fairly minor, and needs sorting out. But it pales into insignificance when compared to the risk that women face every day from proper 'masculine' men through low-level abuse, violence, rape and worse. Think Sarah Everard, the sisters murdered in North London, the misogynistic Met culture, and then multiply many, many times to account for the violence and intimidation faced by many women from 'toxic masculinity', for want of a better phrase.
So, I'd be more convinced by those PBers on here showing their deep concern about the risk to women from 'trans' men if they showed the same concern for women subjected to everyday abuse from 'non-trans' men. A few do, but many don't.
And finally, this is my answer for the Labour Party. Insist on changing the debate to the generic one of violence against women, of which the risk from self-certified trans men is but a tiny subset that needs resolving through a clear policy.