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.
Good day.
Conservative trying to do politics is a new one on me
I did not hear Rishi response and my issue with you this morning is simply you are trying to put this problem down to the conservative right stirring up problems which is simply untrue
Indeed the fact you did not know JK Rowling abuse on this is remarkable in itself, let alone Starmer failing out with labour mp Rosie Duffield over it
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.
The specific issue is not really what would drive away such a vote though, not exactly, it would be the pivot. Convince people Labour are barmy/ not to be trusted as demonstrated by their stance on X, and you might gain their vote despite doing a crap job, or at least persuade them to sit on their hands and not benefit Labour at least.
I think that will work, but not to the point of making an overall win that much more likely. Just that it will blunt the effect of a Labour rise to some degree.
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.
Hope you are keeping well.
I'm normally relaxed about it ..... you're not the first and you won't be the last .... is my standard reply. I did get cross with someone once, not long ago, who argued with me about it.
I blame my father for it, as for several things in my life!
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.
They dropped to 51% at one point with ethnic minority voters but they're back up to 59% now. I think this explains their strengthening position in London in the polls.
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.
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.
Hope you are keeping well.
I'm normally relaxed about it ..... you're not the first and you won't be the last .... is my standard reply. I did get cross with someone once, not long ago, who argued with me about it.
I blame my father for it, as for several things in my life!
Without your father you would not be contributing here
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.
That’s a good suggestion, to move the debate on to violence against women more generally - but in order to do that, they need to be able to define the word “woman” first.
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.
They dropped to 51% at one point with ethnic minority voters but they're back up to 59% now. I think this explains their strengthening position in London in the polls.
If they don't take Wandsworth Starmer will be having serious questions.
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.
Hope you are keeping well.
I'm normally relaxed about it ..... you're not the first and you won't be the last .... is my standard reply. I did get cross with someone once, not long ago, who argued with me about it.
I blame my father for it, as for several things in my life!
It's a funny old thing, as even people who know you, and have done for years, will occasionally slip up particularly in text. Our fingers do not communicate well with the brain - happens to me and it's not even that my first name could be confused for a last name, just that the last name could be a first.
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)?
There is no definition of transgender in law. The phrases used are in the GRA and are -
- gender dysphoria, - gender identity disorder and - transsexualism.
In the Equality Act the reference is in section 7 and is to a "transsexual person".
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
To be fair, the 2019 manifesto also said this - "Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision"
But what Labour politicians do not explain is how self-ID is compatible with this.
The only way it can be is if they make clear that you can continue to exclude someone from a single sex space on the grounds of their unchanged sex even if their gender has changed ie transwomen can be kept out of female only spaces. The Equality Act does permit this.
But this is not what the TRAs want. And that is the problem with the Labour position - they are saying incompatible things to different groups and are now being found out.
There is a way through all this and I have given my attempt upthread. But Labour aren't even trying - it's all impatient sighs and exasperation and contempt - and this simply will not do.
The policy I'd hope to see is to make the GRC process easier and less medicalized - ie based on self id but a proper formalized and defined process with gravitas and controls - and then to have a default inclusion principle.
So, not 'exclude unless ...' but 'include unless ....'
Therefore in practice there won't be many areas where trans people would be excluded on account of their biology not matching their gender but there will probably be some. Details tbc, I'm no expert, but examples springing to my mind as requiring close consideration are (certain) pro sports and (aspects of) prisons.
For me that's the right policy for Labour.
But I think they might bottle it - stick with status quo - and I wouldn't blame them too much if they do. You really don't want to lose an election over this.
The Scottish thing will be interesting anyway, won't it? AIUI they've done the reforms (or similar) so we'll be able to see how they work in practice.
The leader of the Finns Party, Riikka Purra, just announced that she backs NATO membership for Finland.
The highly respected former party leader, Jussi Halla-aho, Chair of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee also agrees.
Finland could join NATO by the summer.
Opposition party - what's the government saying?
If they won't join now, they never will - and frankly given the threats come regardless might as well join.
I see also the Finns Party are the same as what used to be known as the True Finns. I guess thet got tired of the 'No True Finnish person' fallacy gags.
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.
BiB - Seriously? Would you care to name names? I made the point about Couzens that it was appalling that the judge used the fact that he was a serving police officer as the justification for giving him a whole life tariff. Anyone who commits such a heinous crime should be locked up for life and it shouldn't need much thinking about.
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 think the premise is that the economy would be shit Labour or Tory because if COVID and now Russia pushing up inflation. If Labour can't say what they would do differently or better (and they can't) the economy as a subject is neutralised for the Tories which means it will come down to wedge issues and middle England doesn't believe women have cocks. If Labour can't say that the Tories will make it clear that Labour believe women do have cocks.
It will be the free broadband policy but culture wars. That was the moment Labour lost all credibility with voters. If Labour can't clearly come out and say "No Laura, women don't have penises" I don't see how they win in middle England. The Tories will crucify them.
The leader of the Finns Party, Riikka Purra, just announced that she backs NATO membership for Finland.
The highly respected former party leader, Jussi Halla-aho, Chair of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee also agrees.
Finland could join NATO by the summer.
Opposition party - what's the government saying?
If they won't join now, they never will - and frankly given the threats come regardless might as well join.
Government position from the defence minister:
Kaikkonen explained that the government will deliver parliament an updated assessment in April of the country's changed security situation, putting the NATO debate firmly on the table.
The 'they' thing confounds me far more than transgender stuff.
Do they (ahem) think they're plurals?
Singular they is very normal in contexts where the gender of the person in question is unknown.
For example:
"The Ukrainian soldier destroyed the Russian tank with a British-supplied NLAW. They fired at the tank while hidden in the forest beside the road."
Not known whether the Ukrainian soldier is male or female, so the singular they is used. Of all the things to be controversial in this debate, the singular they really shouldn't be one of 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.
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.
They dropped to 51% at one point with ethnic minority voters but they're back up to 59% now. I think this explains their strengthening position in London in the polls.
If they don't take Wandsworth Starmer will be having serious questions.
Yes although local issues also come in to play TBH such as low council tax and Labour already has 3 MPs there anyway. Winning Barnet and/or Westminster would be more totemic as a Labour majority has never happened in those before.
It shouldn't just be about London and the real bellwether for Starmer should be somewhere like Plymouth.
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.
They dropped to 51% at one point with ethnic minority voters but they're back up to 59% now. I think this explains their strengthening position in London in the polls.
If they don't take Wandsworth Starmer will be having serious questions.
Yes although local issues also come in to play TBH such as low council tax and the Labour already has 3 MPs there anyway. Winning Barnet and/or Westminster would be more totemic as a Labour majority has never happened in those before.
It shouldn't just be about London and the real bellwether for Starmer should be somewhere like Plymouth.
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.
I think the number of cases of people acting in bad faith is small but non-zero. We have self-assessment for income tax submissions even though some people act in bad faith, so I don’t think a small number of people acting in bad faith should be a complete block to gender self-identification. But maybe we need additional rules to handle the rare cases where people do act in bad faith.
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.
Superficially, trans issues look like another question of 'live and let live', so a lot of people's instinct is to think that anyone opposed to the direction of travel must be a reactionary bigot and should be dimissed. The problem is that this tendency leads them to end up dismissing a whole range of questions that are not in that category at 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
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 think the premise is that the economy would be shit Labour or Tory because if COVID and now Russia pushing up inflation. If Labour can't say what they would do differently or better (and they can't) the economy as a subject is neutralised for the Tories which means it will come down to wedge issues and middle England doesn't believe women have cocks. If Labour can't say that the Tories will make it clear that Labour believe women do have cocks.
It will be the free broadband policy but culture wars. That was the moment Labour lost all credibility with voters. If Labour can't clearly come out and say "No Laura, women don't have penises" I don't see how they win in middle England. The Tories will crucify them.
Almost makes me glad to be north of the wall. Whilst the SNP government are bonkers, this kind of issue isn't what people decide on when they vote. We have all kinds of new bonkers instead.
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.
Number 10 are braced for the prime minister and his inner circle to be among them [those fined]. After all, he was one of the first to be sent a legally binding questionnaire on 11 February. Some others contacted by the investigation only received a questionnaire last week.
..a prime minister even being investigated by the police is serious - being given a questionnaire equivalent to an interview under caution is unprecedented. If he is found to have broken COVID regulations, questions about his leadership are bound to return. Even the heavily edited report by senior civil servant Sue Gray blasted "failures of leadership and judgment" in Downing Street.
Old news, and don't worry about the economic prospects for voters.
The only topic of any interest to voters now is c**** in frocks. I read it on PB.
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.
Hope you are keeping well.
I'm normally relaxed about it ..... you're not the first and you won't be the last .... is my standard reply. I did get cross with someone once, not long ago, who argued with me about it.
I blame my father for it, as for several things in my life!
Without your father you would not be contributing here
Some would say that's something else to blame him for!
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.
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 think the premise is that the economy would be shit Labour or Tory because if COVID and now Russia pushing up inflation. If Labour can't say what they would do differently or better (and they can't) the economy as a subject is neutralised for the Tories which means it will come down to wedge issues and middle England doesn't believe women have cocks. If Labour can't say that the Tories will make it clear that Labour believe women do have cocks.
It will be the free broadband policy but culture wars. That was the moment Labour lost all credibility with voters. If Labour can't clearly come out and say "No Laura, women don't have penises" I don't see how they win in middle England. The Tories will crucify them.
Almost makes me glad to be north of the wall. Whilst the SNP government are bonkers, this kind of issue isn't what people decide on when they vote. We have all kinds of new bonkers instead.
That's only because the SNP own both sides of the debate in Scotland, but it's very fiercely contested.
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.
That’s a good suggestion, to move the debate on to violence against women more generally - but in order to do that, they need to be able to define the word “woman” first.
I think that's fairly irrelevant, as the problem is not just violence against women, but violence in society as a whole. Something many in here are in denial about.
The chances are most of us will know someone who suffers from domestic abuse, even if they are quite about it.
It does not matter if the victim of violence or abuse is male, female, trans, white, black, Asian, or a little furry creature from Alpha Centuri: the violence or abuse can hurt them just the same.
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.
Completely missing the point. There is no concern about "the risk to women from 'trans' men", because almost everyone (apart from the usual extremists) agree that such a risk is negligible. The entire issue is about proposed changes to legislation that could make it easier for the 'non-trans' men to commit acts of violence.
So, the crux of your argument falls apart. It's not the case that we are obsessing over one risk to the exclusion of a much bigger one; they are one and the same risk. And your solution for Labour doesn't work, because it just focuses in on the inconsistency their policy engenders (so to speak).
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.
BiB - Seriously? Would you care to name names? I made the point about Couzens that it was appalling that the judge used the fact that he was a serving police officer as the justification for giving him a whole life tariff. Anyone who commits such a heinous crime should be locked up for life and it shouldn't need much thinking about.
Of course I'm not going to name names. And of course Couzens attracted huge opprobrium on PB, as high-profile cases do. But I'm not just talking about high-profile cases; more, the everyday, mundane misogyny, and sometimes violence, that women and girls are subjected to.
Read through today's thread, and several others in recent months. More attention is paid to the risk faced by women from a very small subset of 'trans' men than to the exponentially more substantial risk faced by women from a much, much larger group of 'real' men. Seems pretty undeniable to me.
There's one user here who often talks about underage/very young women like they're pieces of meat, how "beautiful" they are and what "nice legs" they have. I am sure they will wade into this debate soon.
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.
I have spoken a lot about the risk to women from men. The risk to women from transwomen has not been properly studied. It may well be low. We simply do not know. People who say that it is low or non-existent are at risk of saying what they would like to be true. But note three things:-
1. Women have been raped by transwomen in prison. There have been 4 such rapes already. Others will have been put in fear of this or suffered sexual assaults. Remember that indecent exposure is also a crime even if it is not always taken as seriously as it should be. Why should any woman suffer even one rape to assuage the feelings of a person with a male body? If transwomen who retain a male body rape why should they be put in a place where they can easily access female victims?
2. There appears to be a higher than average number of men convicted of sexual offences against women and children who claim to be women. When I say higher than average, I mean higher than in the male population. If so, that creates a risk. More research is needed.
3. The risk is that men who are not trans will use the loophole created by self-ID to gain easier access. You cannot tell the difference between a male body inhabited by a predator and one inhabited by a gentleman or one who thinks he is a woman. That is why you keep all of them out. Self-ID will allow all of them in and it is women who then bear the risk. Why the hell should we?
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.
BiB - Seriously? Would you care to name names? I made the point about Couzens that it was appalling that the judge used the fact that he was a serving police officer as the justification for giving him a whole life tariff. Anyone who commits such a heinous crime should be locked up for life and it shouldn't need much thinking about.
Just so the main point isn't missed, I've emboldened the important bit.
I think the point is that there is *vehement* discussion about the one thing, and the only time the other comes up is around egregious cases that invite consensus.
A good example is the way that campaigns against "everyday" Domestic Abuse, such as the campaigns spearheaded by Jess Phillips https://www.anncrafttrust.org/jess-phillips-mp-and-the-domestic-abuse-bill/ are often conflated with examples like the Sarah Everard case, which as part of a continuum of misogynist violence, but the former is often forgotten, hidden away and ignored.
That's not intended to be a criticism of anyone here at all - we are all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) guilty of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach that allows DV to fester and thrive.
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.
I think the number of cases of people acting in bad faith is small but non-zero. We have self-assessment for income tax submissions even though some people act in bad faith, so I don’t think a small number of people acting in bad faith should be a complete block to gender self-identification. But maybe we need additional rules to handle the rare cases where people do act in bad faith.
I think the bad faith impacts from⁷ self Id are of a more personally risky effect than for tax assessment and so the unlikely nature of it is not an acceptable risk in that case.
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.
Superficially, trans issues look like another question of 'live and let live', so a lot of people's instinct is to think that anyone opposed to the direction of travel must be a reactionary bigot and should be dimissed. The problem is that this tendency leads them to end up dismissing a whole range of questions that are not in that category at all.
I think this is the key. It's the example of making that part simple when it is more complex, whilst making questions of sex etc more complex when biologically in most cases it is simpler.
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.
Whichj is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
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.
No chance Labour are very solid throughout the Midlands - oh wait, no they're really not.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
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.
No chance Labour are very solid throughout the Midlands - oh wait, no they're really not.
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.
Anything other than "he" or "she" risks sounding like the person is being deliberately awkward...
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.
BiB - Seriously? Would you care to name names? I made the point about Couzens that it was appalling that the judge used the fact that he was a serving police officer as the justification for giving him a whole life tariff. Anyone who commits such a heinous crime should be locked up for life and it shouldn't need much thinking about.
Just so the main point isn't missed, I've emboldened the important bit.
I think the point is that there is *vehement* discussion about the one thing, and the only time the other comes up is around egregious cases that invite consensus.
A good example is the way that campaigns against "everyday" Domestic Abuse, such as the campaigns spearheaded by Jess Phillips https://www.anncrafttrust.org/jess-phillips-mp-and-the-domestic-abuse-bill/ are often conflated with examples like the Sarah Everard case, which as part of a continuum of misogynist violence, but the former is often forgotten, hidden away and ignored.
That's not intended to be a criticism of anyone here at all - we are all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) guilty of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach that allows DV to fester and thrive.
For what it's worth, I'd happily see much longer prison sentences for men convicted of domestic violence. Perhaps I don't get out enough, but it's not something I've witnessed or been aware of within my social circle. I'm not sure what I'm personally supposed to do about that.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
I'd say no, but I dont think self proclaimed libertarians are very consistent in any case about being happy to restrict things.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
The issue with that is that it can only really be applied to motorways, which is where it is least needed. All it will do is piss off people whilst not making much difference to road safety figures.
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.
I have spoken a lot about the risk to women from men. The risk to women from transwomen has not been properly studied. It may well be low. We simply do not know. People who say that it is low or non-existent are at risk of saying what they would like to be true. But note three things:-
1. Women have been raped by transwomen in prison. There have been 4 such rapes already. Others will have been put in fear of this or suffered sexual assaults. Remember that indecent exposure is also a crime even if it is not always taken as seriously as it should be. Why should any woman suffer even one rape to assuage the feelings of a person with a male body? If transwomen who retain a male body rape why should they be put in a place where they can easily access female victims?
2. There appears to be a higher than average number of men convicted of sexual offences against women and children who claim to be women. When I say higher than average, I mean higher than in the male population. If so, that creates a risk. More research is needed.
3. The risk is that men who are not trans will use the loophole created by self-ID to gain easier access. You cannot tell the difference between a male body inhabited by a predator and one inhabited by a gentleman or one who thinks he is a woman. That is why you keep all of them out. Self-ID will allow all of them in and it is women who then bear the risk. Why the hell should we?
I'm not disagreeing with you, and I don't include you in my comment, as it happens.
I was making a simple point. The risk to women from trans men is, as you say, unknown. It may even be significant. But we can confidently say that it is nowhere near as high as the risk to women from 'proper' men. And we don't focus enough on the latter.
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.
BiB - Seriously? Would you care to name names? I made the point about Couzens that it was appalling that the judge used the fact that he was a serving police officer as the justification for giving him a whole life tariff. Anyone who commits such a heinous crime should be locked up for life and it shouldn't need much thinking about.
Just so the main point isn't missed, I've emboldened the important bit.
I think the point is that there is *vehement* discussion about the one thing, and the only time the other comes up is around egregious cases that invite consensus.
A good example is the way that campaigns against "everyday" Domestic Abuse, such as the campaigns spearheaded by Jess Phillips https://www.anncrafttrust.org/jess-phillips-mp-and-the-domestic-abuse-bill/ are often conflated with examples like the Sarah Everard case, which as part of a continuum of misogynist violence, but the former is often forgotten, hidden away and ignored.
That's not intended to be a criticism of anyone here at all - we are all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) guilty of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach that allows DV to fester and thrive.
For what it's worth, I'd happily see much longer prison sentences for men convicted of domestic violence. Perhaps I don't get out enough, but it's not something I've witnessed or been aware of within my social circle. I'm not sure what I'm personally supposed to do about that.
We should have longer prison sentences for ANYONE convicted of domestic violence. Gender is irrelevant. The discrepancy in prison terms for the same offence is appalling.
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.
I have spoken a lot about the risk to women from men. The risk to women from transwomen has not been properly studied. It may well be low. We simply do not know. People who say that it is low or non-existent are at risk of saying what they would like to be true. But note three things:-
1. Women have been raped by transwomen in prison. There have been 4 such rapes already. Others will have been put in fear of this or suffered sexual assaults. Remember that indecent exposure is also a crime even if it is not always taken as seriously as it should be. Why should any woman suffer even one rape to assuage the feelings of a person with a male body? If transwomen who retain a male body rape why should they be put in a place where they can easily access female victims?
2. There appears to be a higher than average number of men convicted of sexual offences against women and children who claim to be women. When I say higher than average, I mean higher than in the male population. If so, that creates a risk. More research is needed.
3. The risk is that men who are not trans will use the loophole created by self-ID to gain easier access. You cannot tell the difference between a male body inhabited by a predator and one inhabited by a gentleman or one who thinks he is a woman. That is why you keep all of them out. Self-ID will allow all of them in and it is women who then bear the risk. Why the hell should we?
I'm not disagreeing with you, and I don't include you in my comment, as it happens.
I was making a simple point. The risk to women from trans men is, as you say, unknown. It may even be significant. But we can confidently say that it is nowhere near as high as the risk to women from 'proper' men. And we don't focus enough on the latter.
Alternatively, women already face enough danger, why risk making it worse?
Starmer deep in conversation with Blackford at Prince Philip's Memorial Service.
First stage in Labour and SNP confidence and supply talks? Given current polling that looks like the main way Starmer would become PM in a hung parliament
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.
Nor was the EU relevant to most people, until they realised how many things it was behind.
Labour can't risk looking like it has the wrong instincts - if they do then policies, no matter how popular in the abstract, won't be enough.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
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.
I have spoken a lot about the risk to women from men. The risk to women from transwomen has not been properly studied. It may well be low. We simply do not know. People who say that it is low or non-existent are at risk of saying what they would like to be true. But note three things:-
1. Women have been raped by transwomen in prison. There have been 4 such rapes already. Others will have been put in fear of this or suffered sexual assaults. Remember that indecent exposure is also a crime even if it is not always taken as seriously as it should be. Why should any woman suffer even one rape to assuage the feelings of a person with a male body? If transwomen who retain a male body rape why should they be put in a place where they can easily access female victims?
2. There appears to be a higher than average number of men convicted of sexual offences against women and children who claim to be women. When I say higher than average, I mean higher than in the male population. If so, that creates a risk. More research is needed.
3. The risk is that men who are not trans will use the loophole created by self-ID to gain easier access. You cannot tell the difference between a male body inhabited by a predator and one inhabited by a gentleman or one who thinks he is a woman. That is why you keep all of them out. Self-ID will allow all of them in and it is women who then bear the risk. Why the hell should we?
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.
No chance Labour are very solid throughout the Midlands - oh wait, no they're really not.
London is though.
Yup and becuase of that London will not decide the next GE - very few seats they can gain there.
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.
BiB - Seriously? Would you care to name names? I made the point about Couzens that it was appalling that the judge used the fact that he was a serving police officer as the justification for giving him a whole life tariff. Anyone who commits such a heinous crime should be locked up for life and it shouldn't need much thinking about.
Just so the main point isn't missed, I've emboldened the important bit.
I think the point is that there is *vehement* discussion about the one thing, and the only time the other comes up is around egregious cases that invite consensus.
A good example is the way that campaigns against "everyday" Domestic Abuse, such as the campaigns spearheaded by Jess Phillips https://www.anncrafttrust.org/jess-phillips-mp-and-the-domestic-abuse-bill/ are often conflated with examples like the Sarah Everard case, which as part of a continuum of misogynist violence, but the former is often forgotten, hidden away and ignored.
That's not intended to be a criticism of anyone here at all - we are all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) guilty of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach that allows DV to fester and thrive.
For what it's worth, I'd happily see much longer prison sentences for men convicted of domestic violence. Perhaps I don't get out enough, but it's not something I've witnessed or been aware of within my social circle. I'm not sure what I'm personally supposed to do about that.
We should have longer prison sentences for ANYONE convicted of domestic violence. Gender is irrelevant. The discrepancy in prison terms for the same offence is appalling.
I agree that women can perpetrate domestic violence against men. I called out the BBC for shit-stirring in the case of Penelope Jackson:
That led the Six O'clock News and clearly the BBC were doing so because they thought it controversial that the jury didn't believe her claims that "her husband was violent and coercively controlling."
However, I do think women have more leeway in this area. Take Layla Moran:
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.
That’s a good suggestion, to move the debate on to violence against women more generally - but in order to do that, they need to be able to define the word “woman” first.
I went to a comedy night last night (the headliner was a guy from Lewisham called Toussaint Douglass who was unbelievably good and I think will break through big time, he was the real deal). One of the comedians on the bill was a trans woman. Perhaps I am not very observant but I only knew she was trans because it was a big part of her act. I have no idea if she had a penis or not, she didn't show us and nobody asked. She looked like a woman to me, and she was clearly deeply committed to living as a woman. I think if she were made to use a male toilet she would probably put herself at risk of assault. As far as I'm concerned, she was a woman, in terms of how she was living her life. Biologically she was a man I suppose, but I don't know why anyone would feel a burning desire to tell her that she isn't a woman. She said that she was just the same as any other woman, except that she had no empathy.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
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.
JK Rowling said nothing unreasonable yet has been on the end of a torrent of hatred, she was excluded from a recent documentary on Harry Potter, she has had cast members disown her, she has received death threats and had her house posted online on social media and had her own views wildly misrepresented as if she wants trans people to be wiped off the face of the earth. She doesn’t.
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.
Could you please point to where the Report makes that claim? The section on the Panel is in Ch2 and runs for about 5 pages. I can't see where it talks about personal in-the-flesh grillings. The problems it highlights (as I read it) are to do with anonymity, transparency, speed, confidentiality.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
Mr. Password, I understand 'they' as a pronoun for singular when the sex of the individual is unknown. But when it is known, that's where it seems rather peculiar.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
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 don’t know anyone in my part of the red wall who cares about the latter but plenty care about the former.
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
Does anyone seriously believe that trans women using female toilets would result in more assaults than trans women using male toilets?
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
Bloody shame that the UK hasn't left the EU and therefore has to submit to the TYRANNY of the EUSSRocrats.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
The article I read didn't really explain how "strong" the effect is. It implied that the car can go faster than the limit, but depending on the car, you might be slowed over time or have to use more force on the accelerator. Does anyone have an understanding for this?
Starmer deep in conversation with Blackford at Prince Philip's Memorial Service.
First stage in Labour and SNP confidence and supply talks? Given current polling that looks like the main way Starmer would become PM in a hung parliament
CBS News @CBSNews BREAKING: CBS News and the Washington Post have obtained White House records turned over to the House, which show a gap in President Donald Trump's phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes on January 6.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
So you didn't see anyone calling for the whip to be removed from Rosie Duffield at the last Labour conference?
French sportswear retailer Decathlon has backtracked and suspended its activities in Russia following criticism of its decision to stay. It said supply chain disruption meant it could no longer operate in the country but it would continue to support its 2,500 Russian staff.
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.
BiB - Seriously? Would you care to name names? I made the point about Couzens that it was appalling that the judge used the fact that he was a serving police officer as the justification for giving him a whole life tariff. Anyone who commits such a heinous crime should be locked up for life and it shouldn't need much thinking about.
Just so the main point isn't missed, I've emboldened the important bit.
I think the point is that there is *vehement* discussion about the one thing, and the only time the other comes up is around egregious cases that invite consensus.
A good example is the way that campaigns against "everyday" Domestic Abuse, such as the campaigns spearheaded by Jess Phillips https://www.anncrafttrust.org/jess-phillips-mp-and-the-domestic-abuse-bill/ are often conflated with examples like the Sarah Everard case, which as part of a continuum of misogynist violence, but the former is often forgotten, hidden away and ignored.
That's not intended to be a criticism of anyone here at all - we are all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) guilty of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach that allows DV to fester and thrive.
For what it's worth, I'd happily see much longer prison sentences for men convicted of domestic violence. Perhaps I don't get out enough, but it's not something I've witnessed or been aware of within my social circle. I'm not sure what I'm personally supposed to do about that.
We should have longer prison sentences for ANYONE convicted of domestic violence. Gender is irrelevant. The discrepancy in prison terms for the same offence is appalling.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
So you didn't see anyone calling for the whip to be removed from Rosie Duffield at the last Labour conference?
1) Rosie Duffield raised the issue 2) Only Tories raise the issue 3) Therefore Rosie Duffield is a Tory 4) Therefore it is completely understandable that no-one would notice a call to remove the Labour whip from a Tory.
Starmer deep in conversation with Blackford at Prince Philip's Memorial Service.
First stage in Labour and SNP confidence and supply talks? Given current polling that looks like the main way Starmer would become PM in a hung parliament
Not confirmed although I don't think Alyn Smith/Stewart McDonald/whoever would change things much although Kirsten Oswald is a relatively weak media performer.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
The article I read didn't really explain how "strong" the effect is. It implied that the car can go faster than the limit, but depending on the car, you might be slowed over time or have to use more force on the accelerator. Does anyone have an understanding for this?
The info available seems mushy or contradictory. The Autotrader piece if I understand it right says that the accelerator will push back when approaching a speed limit but can be overridden by the driver also pushing down. Sounds fecking annoying if nothing else.
@maxseddon Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
"poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed."
That comment might say more about your attitude than you intended...
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.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
The article I read didn't really explain how "strong" the effect is. It implied that the car can go faster than the limit, but depending on the car, you might be slowed over time or have to use more force on the accelerator. Does anyone have an understanding for this?
The info available seems mushy or contradictory. The Autotrader piece if I understand it right says that the accelerator will push back when approaching a speed limit but can be overridden by the driver also pushing down. Sounds fecking annoying if nothing else.
It does appear that it applies only to new car models from July 2022, existing homologated models are not covered until they are replaced or retired by the manufacturer.
Not a lot of detail around, for a change that’s so close.
@maxseddon Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
I wish the gender debates were focussed on the bigger issues:
- How to improve treatment (funding, waiting times) for those suffering from gender dysphoria - Clamp down on genuine acts of transphobia (e.g. assaults, harassment) - Raise awareness by showing positive examples to help normalise it in society
Instead, it has become a campaign to remove any reference to a sex-based definition of women (strangely focussed the definition of women, not men); campaigning for self-identification with no regard to sex-based rights; and making sure everyone puts pronouns in email signatures...
On much of the left it has been framed as a "right vs. wrong" issue, much in the way gay rights were 15 years ago, and not as a balancing act between the rights of two groups that face various forms of discrimination.
@maxseddon Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
"poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed."
That comment might say more about your attitude than you intended...
Worth noting that some of the worst offenders didn't seem to have a problem in getting a partner. Sutcliffe, Bellfield, Huntley, and Couzens all had wives/girlfriends.
How the hell do they hope to hold that line? "No rules were broken"? They said "there were no such events" and now people are being hit with fines for attending them.
Boris lied to Parliament. I expect he will be called up to answer, will try and bullshit his way out and then his MPs will be told to whip that just because all these people have been prosecuted for breaching the rules at these parties in fact He didn't lie when he denied they took place.
@maxseddon Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
The article I read didn't really explain how "strong" the effect is. It implied that the car can go faster than the limit, but depending on the car, you might be slowed over time or have to use more force on the accelerator. Does anyone have an understanding for this?
The info available seems mushy or contradictory. The Autotrader piece if I understand it right says that the accelerator will push back when approaching a speed limit but can be overridden by the driver also pushing down. Sounds fecking annoying if nothing else.
I saw some suggestions in a article last week that they were also considering the system used in some Arabic countries of a continuous audible alarm. It is fecking annoying but has the disadvantage for the authorities that it is only useful for the maximum speed limit - 70 MPH in the UK.
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.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
I think Max puts his views too robustly, but I suspect he does so for effect.
Nobody wants to roll back existing rights.
They do object to being told to ignore the evidence of their own eyes (I am thinking of the Lia Williams case especially here).
Comments
@visegrad24
·
14m
BREAKING:
The leader of the Finns Party, Riikka Purra, just announced that she backs NATO membership for Finland.
The highly respected former party leader, Jussi Halla-aho, Chair of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee also agrees.
Finland could join NATO by the summer.
I did not hear Rishi response and my issue with you this morning is simply you are trying to put this problem down to the conservative right stirring up problems which is simply untrue
Indeed the fact you did not know JK Rowling abuse on this is remarkable in itself, let alone Starmer failing out with labour mp Rosie Duffield over it
BBC News - Rosie Duffield: MP considers leaving Labour over 'obsessive harassment'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-60188577
I think that will work, but not to the point of making an overall win that much more likely. Just that it will blunt the effect of a Labour rise to some degree.
I did get cross with someone once, not long ago, who argued with me about it.
I blame my father for it, as for several things in my life!
If they won't join now, they never will - and frankly given the threats come regardless might as well join.
A week later: "I've been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged there was no party and no rules were broken"
12 Jan 22: "I believed implicitly this was a work event"
24 Jan: "It was only 10 minutes"
Today: 20 fines.
He certainly does not have a CPRP.
- gender dysphoria,
- gender identity disorder and
- transsexualism.
In the Equality Act the reference is in section 7 and is to a "transsexual person".
So, not 'exclude unless ...' but 'include unless ....'
Therefore in practice there won't be many areas where trans people would be excluded on account of their biology not matching their gender but there will probably be some. Details tbc, I'm no expert, but examples springing to my mind as requiring close consideration are (certain) pro sports and (aspects of) prisons.
For me that's the right policy for Labour.
But I think they might bottle it - stick with status quo - and I wouldn't blame them too much if they do. You really don't want to lose an election over this.
The Scottish thing will be interesting anyway, won't it? AIUI they've done the reforms (or similar) so we'll be able to see how they work in practice.
It will be the free broadband policy but culture wars. That was the moment Labour lost all credibility with voters. If Labour can't clearly come out and say "No Laura, women don't have penises" I don't see how they win in middle England. The Tories will crucify them.
Kaikkonen explained that the government will deliver parliament an updated assessment in April of the country's changed security situation, putting the NATO debate firmly on the table.
https://www.dw.com/en/is-nato-finally-in-finlands-future/a-61283265
For example:
"The Ukrainian soldier destroyed the Russian tank with a British-supplied NLAW. They fired at the tank while hidden in the forest beside the road."
Not known whether the Ukrainian soldier is male or female, so the singular they is used. Of all the things to be controversial in this debate, the singular they really shouldn't be one of them.
It shouldn't just be about London and the real bellwether for Starmer should be somewhere like Plymouth.
Hope you are keeping well Gary.
The only topic of any interest to voters now is c**** in frocks. I read it on PB.
"3.1% of women (510,000) and 0.8% of men (138,000) aged 16 to 59 had experienced a sexual assault in the last year."
https://www.sosrc.org/sexual-violence-stats/
Broadening it further to domestic abuse, and the figures are staggering:
"An estimated 2.0 million adults aged 16 to 59 years experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2018, equating to a prevalence rate of approximately 6 in 100 adults (Figure 2). Women were around twice as likely to have experienced domestic abuse than men (7.9% compared with 4.2%). This equates to an estimated 1.3 million female victims and 695,000 male victims"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018#prevalence-of-domestic-abuse
The chances are most of us will know someone who suffers from domestic abuse, even if they are quite about it.
It does not matter if the victim of violence or abuse is male, female, trans, white, black, Asian, or a little furry creature from Alpha Centuri: the violence or abuse can hurt them just the same.
So, the crux of your argument falls apart. It's not the case that we are obsessing over one risk to the exclusion of a much bigger one; they are one and the same risk. And your solution for Labour doesn't work, because it just focuses in on the inconsistency their policy engenders (so to speak).
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1507338378467069979
Read through today's thread, and several others in recent months. More attention is paid to the risk faced by women from a very small subset of 'trans' men than to the exponentially more substantial risk faced by women from a much, much larger group of 'real' men. Seems pretty undeniable to me.
PM’s spox refuses to say if he now accepts law has been broken.
He reveals staff receiving fines not obliged to disclose.
Rules out PM apologising for misleading House for insisting no rules broken.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1508770128086941699
1. Women have been raped by transwomen in prison. There have been 4 such rapes already. Others will have been put in fear of this or suffered sexual assaults. Remember that indecent exposure is also a crime even if it is not always taken as seriously as it should be. Why should any woman suffer even one rape to assuage the feelings of a person with a male body? If transwomen who retain a male body rape why should they be put in a place where they can easily access female victims?
2. There appears to be a higher than average number of men convicted of sexual offences against women and children who claim to be women. When I say higher than average, I mean higher than in the male population. If so, that creates a risk. More research is needed.
3. The risk is that men who are not trans will use the loophole created by self-ID to gain easier access. You cannot tell the difference between a male body inhabited by a predator and one inhabited by a gentleman or one who thinks he is a woman. That is why you keep all of them out. Self-ID will allow all of them in and it is women who then bear the risk. Why the hell should we?
I think the point is that there is *vehement* discussion about the one thing, and the only time the other comes up is around egregious cases that invite consensus.
A good example is the way that campaigns against "everyday" Domestic Abuse, such as the campaigns spearheaded by Jess Phillips https://www.anncrafttrust.org/jess-phillips-mp-and-the-domestic-abuse-bill/ are often conflated with examples like the Sarah Everard case, which as part of a continuum of misogynist violence, but the former is often forgotten, hidden away and ignored.
That's not intended to be a criticism of anyone here at all - we are all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) guilty of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach that allows DV to fester and thrive.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/03/29/twelve-players-should-englands-test-radar-summer/
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
I was making a simple point. The risk to women from trans men is, as you say, unknown. It may even be significant. But we can confidently say that it is nowhere near as high as the risk to women from 'proper' men. And we don't focus enough on the latter.
First stage in Labour and SNP confidence and supply talks? Given current polling that looks like the main way Starmer would become PM in a hung parliament
https://twitter.com/jamesbundy/status/1508764496327806983?s=20&t=2oukdRMrMcWjzMwWasdsUQ
If someone on no. 10 is fined, should they have to reveal that to their employer? Isn’t someone who attracts FPNs a potential security risk?
Labour can't risk looking like it has the wrong instincts - if they do then policies, no matter how popular in the abstract, won't be enough.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-59096177
That led the Six O'clock News and clearly the BBC were doing so because they thought it controversial that the jury didn't believe her claims that "her husband was violent and coercively controlling."
However, I do think women have more leeway in this area. Take Layla Moran:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-47686844
And take Jonathan Edwards:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57803629
I think it's only natural that Layla still has a career and Mr Edwards possibly doesn't.
She looked like a woman to me, and she was clearly deeply committed to living as a woman. I think if she were made to use a male toilet she would probably put herself at risk of assault. As far as I'm concerned, she was a woman, in terms of how she was living her life. Biologically she was a man I suppose, but I don't know why anyone would feel a burning desire to tell her that she isn't a woman. She said that she was just the same as any other woman, except that she had no empathy.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/news/mandatory-speed-limiters-on-uk-cars-from-2022?msclkid=94e09a11af5611ec913c4e37746eb1a8
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE?
Or perhaps not.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
Scroll through the comments.
There are various groups: -
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly".
2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that".
3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party)
And then -
4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and
5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
CBS News
@CBSNews
BREAKING: CBS News and the Washington Post have obtained White House records turned over to the House, which show a gap in President Donald Trump's phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes on January 6.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60912746
Bit like Renault, not a moral stance, one born out not having been able to trade due to reliance on supply chain.
21 year old, in a position of responsibility and guardianship, convicted of twice having sex with a 15 year old pupil. Suspended sentence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10660857/Teaching-assistant-21-took-schoolboy-15-home-sex-saying-age-just-number.html
2) Only Tories raise the issue
3) Therefore Rosie Duffield is a Tory
4) Therefore it is completely understandable that no-one would notice a call to remove the Labour whip from a Tory.
Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1508774654940520448
That comment might say more about your attitude than you intended...
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
Not a lot of detail around, for a change that’s so close.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/07/mandatory-speed-limiters-are-coming-and-theyll-be-even-worse-than-we-thought/
- How to improve treatment (funding, waiting times) for those suffering from gender dysphoria
- Clamp down on genuine acts of transphobia (e.g. assaults, harassment)
- Raise awareness by showing positive examples to help normalise it in society
Instead, it has become a campaign to remove any reference to a sex-based definition of women (strangely focussed the definition of women, not men); campaigning for self-identification with no regard to sex-based rights; and making sure everyone puts pronouns in email signatures...
On much of the left it has been framed as a "right vs. wrong" issue, much in the way gay rights were 15 years ago, and not as a balancing act between the rights of two groups that face various forms of discrimination.
They're getting beat.
He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
Boris lied to Parliament. I expect he will be called up to answer, will try and bullshit his way out and then his MPs will be told to whip that just because all these people have been prosecuted for breaching the rules at these parties in fact He didn't lie when he denied they took place.
LAB: 39% (-)
CON: 35% (-)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 3% (-1)
via @SavantaComRes, 25 - 27 Mar
Chgs. w/ 20 Mar
Nobody wants to roll back existing rights.
They do object to being told to ignore the evidence of their own eyes (I am thinking of the Lia Williams case especially here).