Thank you for another powerful and moving article, @Cyclefree. I have shared it with family and friends. I am disappointed that most of the discussion on this thread so far has not been relevant to the topic. I was also disappointed yesterday that both the BBC and ITV news seemed to me to be biased in favour of the trans supporters.
Thing is, because it's very thorough there isn't much to add to it and what could be added usefully has been said by @RochdalePioneers . So there is a real risk that further discussion will descend into a unedifying slanging match between rival camps.
Called it...
Depressing, isn't it?
The truth is that trans is just the stick being used to beat people with today. Tomorrow will be a different stick. The two sides calling each other twats on here don't really care about this issue, they just know they are right and want to attack anyone who has a different opinion because they are WRONG.
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
All the SC has done is to try to untangle what parliament has done and inform parliament and us what it is. It has expressed no preferences or ideologies. They have clarified current law. Discussion of the SC should be confined to the detail of how it has reasoned and argued in trying to comprehend a difficult to comprehend parliament.
It is for government and parliament to decide if they should amend what they have already set in place.
There is no good reason to be either pleased or upset with the SC. Keep all that for parliament and government. And our SC should not be confused with the massively politicised SCOTUS.
I know that. However she (and realistically most people) don’t know that. They only read the news (at most usually, the headlines).
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
All the SC has done is to try to untangle what parliament has done and inform parliament and us what it is. It has expressed no preferences or ideologies. They have clarified current law. Discussion of the SC should be confined to the detail of how it has reasoned and argued in trying to comprehend a difficult to comprehend parliament.
It is for government and parliament to decide if they should amend what they have already set in place.
There is no good reason to be either pleased or upset with the SC. Keep all that for parliament and government. And our SC should not be confused with the massively politicised SCOTUS.
I know that. However she (and realistically most people) don’t know that. They only read the news (at most usually, the headlines).
Try her on this one, the recent challenge to the mighty Boardman v Phipps, but keep it for the long winter evenings:
Thank you for another powerful and moving article, @Cyclefree. I have shared it with family and friends. I am disappointed that most of the discussion on this thread so far has not been relevant to the topic. I was also disappointed yesterday that both the BBC and ITV news seemed to me to be biased in favour of the trans supporters.
Thing is, because it's very thorough there isn't much to add to it and what could be added usefully has been said by @RochdalePioneers . So there is a real risk that further discussion will descend into a unedifying slanging match between rival camps.
Called it...
Depressing, isn't it?
The truth is that trans is just the stick being used to beat people with today. Tomorrow will be a different stick. The two sides calling each other twats on here don't really care about this issue, they just know they are right and want to attack anyone who has a different opinion because they are WRONG.
Are you taking you party to task over their unstinting support for the GRA? Though admittedly Alex Cole-Hamala has gone a bit quiet about it recently.
Thank you for another powerful and moving article, @Cyclefree. I have shared it with family and friends. I am disappointed that most of the discussion on this thread so far has not been relevant to the topic. I was also disappointed yesterday that both the BBC and ITV news seemed to me to be biased in favour of the trans supporters.
Thing is, because it's very thorough there isn't much to add to it and what could be added usefully has been said by @RochdalePioneers . So there is a real risk that further discussion will descend into a unedifying slanging match between rival camps.
Called it...
Depressing, isn't it?
The truth is that trans is just the stick being used to beat people with today. Tomorrow will be a different stick. The two sides calling each other twats on here don't really care about this issue, they just know they are right and want to attack anyone who has a different opinion because they are WRONG.
Very few people are calling each other 'tw@ts'. Most of us are trying to discuss a complex issue that affects people we know to different degrees. Albeit we are doing so with varying degrees of knowledge and bias...
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Zelenskyy has occasionally posited that VVP is not long for this world. Is this trolling or is there considered to be something in it?
Thank you for another powerful and moving article, @Cyclefree. I have shared it with family and friends. I am disappointed that most of the discussion on this thread so far has not been relevant to the topic. I was also disappointed yesterday that both the BBC and ITV news seemed to me to be biased in favour of the trans supporters.
Thing is, because it's very thorough there isn't much to add to it and what could be added usefully has been said by @RochdalePioneers . So there is a real risk that further discussion will descend into a unedifying slanging match between rival camps.
Called it...
Depressing, isn't it?
The truth is that trans is just the stick being used to beat people with today. Tomorrow will be a different stick. The two sides calling each other twats on here don't really care about this issue, they just know they are right and want to attack anyone who has a different opinion because they are WRONG.
Are you taking you party to task over their unstinting support for the GRA? Though admittedly Alex Cole-Hamala has gone a bit quiet about it recently.
ACH got it very wrong and there is a significant amount of disquiet generated over it.
Then again, it's one issue. I agree with him on a lot of stuff.
There has been a massive amount of trans hatred online over the last couple of days.
Anyone who denies trans people exist, or want to make being trans impossible, can fuck right off.
Getting your panties in a bunch Josias, calm down dear.
Nah, not really.
Seriously Malc; you should read some of the stuff that's out there. If this continues another trans person will end up being killed.
This is the new world, where trans people are all just pretending. Hence the very deliberate language in the header about “sad trans identified men”. The sneery dismissal oozing out, which reminds me a little of the Russian attitude to “so called Ukrainians” with their pretend country.
It’s like the olden days when being gay was “just a phase”.
Cyclefree has always been deep inside Gender Crit circles - in case that wasn’t already obvious. This is the language GCs have always used amongst themselves. Now she feels free to use it in public.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
British so no trouble with courts.
It should be a state of the art facility with good accommodation. No need for barbed wire because there's nowhere else to go. You can't leave except for the ferry and the operator will know all the residents personally and can just turn anyone else away.
You are free to leave any time you like, once you get another passport.
The weather is crap so anyone who doesn't want to be there won't tolerate it but genuine asylum seekers will be happy to wait for a year.
(Ideally this should also be accompanied by measures to make it easier for genuine asylum seekers to seek it nearer home).
If you think it's expensive to lock them up in hotels - it is - then you're going to be dismayed by the costing of that scheme.
I'm trying to think like the nationalist right. Cost is clearly not a concern, because they want no immigration. I'm assuming this is meant to be a deterrent, if there are many people actually there then it will have failed. My suggestion is merely to take at face value what the right says they want, and propose a way that this might work. At great cost, as you say (but so would any other offshore processing centre).
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
The RN would 100% do tow backs if ordered. If only because the CinC, Fleet who pulled it off would be a certainty for elevation to 1SL. If it worked, it would be career steroids for all involved so they would give it a red hot go.
The Australian Navy did 30+ tow backs without drowning anybody. After that, they didn't have to do any more because the boats stopped. So the processes and techniques for doing it are well understood and tested.
I'm surprised that Sunak didn't give it a go then.
We are more squeamish than the Aussies and we tie ourselves up in gordian knots of legal red-tape, not helped by the fact there are no purely international waters in the Dover Strait.
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
As I have said many times, there is a geopolitical logic, and even a geopolitical excitement, to a UK-Canadian alliance that would comprise a single market, freedom of movement, and joint defence and energy strategy. Canada would co-hold the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
All the SC has done is to try to untangle what parliament has done and inform parliament and us what it is. It has expressed no preferences or ideologies. They have clarified current law. Discussion of the SC should be confined to the detail of how it has reasoned and argued in trying to comprehend a difficult to comprehend parliament.
It is for government and parliament to decide if they should amend what they have already set in place.
There is no good reason to be either pleased or upset with the SC. Keep all that for parliament and government. And our SC should not be confused with the massively politicised SCOTUS.
Lawyer Gallowgate's homework can be to explain this to his girlfriend; once that's done, if it's not too exciting he can explain to her why the SC recently declined to revisit and overrule Boardman v Phipps.
I think the critical difference between our SC and the US SC is that our SC (at least post Baroness Hale) tells us what the law is. They do not regard it as a part of their function to tell us what it should be. That is a good thing.
The great strength of this judgment is its clarity. The hybrid solution that the Inner House had come up with in Scotland where sometimes women means biological woman and sometimes it means biological woman plus GRC holders and sometimes it even means biological women + GRC holders plus those who identify as women was frankly an incomprehensible mess which made giving clear advice on any given set of facts almost impossible.
Its weaknesses have been explored on this thread today and I have found the various contributions interesting. The Court did emphasise that transgenderism is a protected characteristic and they continue to have the right not to be discriminated against. I suspect the next wave of litigation will be trying to put some meat on that statement. If a GRC does not make a man a woman what does it do? What does the right not to be discriminated against mean in the real world? It certainly does not mean that someone's sex has changed "for all purposes" as set out in s9 of the 2004 Act. Baroness Falkner was asked this on R4 yesterday morning. She suggested, for example, that if someone was dismissed because they were transgender then they would have a claim. It will be interesting to see how far that can go.
The most disturbing thing about the recent film was the utterly awful sexual intercourse he had.
I believe @Leon is referring to a famous incident when Napoleon’s preserved and amputated penis came up for auction, and was described as “resembling a shrivelled seahorse”.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
As I have said many times, there is a geopolitical logic, and even a geopolitical excitement, to a UK-Canadian alliance that would comprise a single market, freedom of movement, and joint defence and energy strategy. Canada would co-hold the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
CANZAUK is the future for all four countries IMO. Not a political union like the EU but joined up thinking on a lot more than what we do today and a common approach to trade matters. It would create a $7.5tn trading power who are all mostly aligned in cultural outlook and values.
There really shouldn’t be any controversy over the Supreme Court decision .
The media have failed to explain the decision properly. The SC simply clarified a section of the Equalities Act in relation to a woman for the purpose of that Act .
If the government wanted to alter the law and say a woman can be both biological sex at birth and a man who has transitioned they could do that.
Labour though should leave this matter alone now .
There is no good reason to be either pleased or upset with the SC. Keep all that for parliament and government. And our SC should not be confused with the massively politicised SCOTUS.
Absolutely. I'm appalled at the damage this ruling will cause, but that is not the court's fault. They did their job and interpreted the law. That the Equality Act is badly drawn and to a large degree unenforceable when it comes to trans people is squarely a failure of legislature.
It's up to the Government and Parliament to sort out this mess, but I have little hope they will. Democratic government here (and in too many other places) increasing resembles two wolves and a rabbit voting on who's for dinner.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
As I have said many times, there is a geopolitical logic, and even a geopolitical excitement, to a UK-Canadian alliance that would comprise a single market, freedom of movement, and joint defence and energy strategy. Canada would co-hold the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
As I have said many times, there is a geopolitical logic, and even a geopolitical excitement, to a UK-Canadian alliance that would comprise a single market, freedom of movement, and joint defence and energy strategy. Canada would co-hold the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
CANZAUK is the future for all four countries IMO. Not a political union like the EU but joined up thinking on a lot more than what we do today and a common approach to trade matters. It would create a $7.5tn trading power who are all mostly aligned in cultural outlook and values.
I agree. Tho Free Movement and some kind of joint citizenship would be nice
There has been a massive amount of trans hatred online over the last couple of days.
Anyone who denies trans people exist, or want to make being trans impossible, can fuck right off.
Getting your panties in a bunch Josias, calm down dear.
Nah, not really.
Seriously Malc; you should read some of the stuff that's out there. If this continues another trans person will end up being killed.
This is the new world, where trans people are all just pretending. Hence the very deliberate language in the header about “sad trans identified men”. The sneery dismissal oozing out, which reminds me a little of the Russian attitude to “so called Ukrainians” with their pretend country.
It’s like the olden days when being gay was “just a phase”.
Cyclefree has always been deep inside Gender Crit circles - in case that wasn’t already obvious. This is the language GCs have always used amongst themselves. Now she feels free to use it in public.
You played for high stakes, and lost.
Suck it up.
This is it really, the activists tried to expand the meaning of woman beyond XX and failed, now it literally means XX other than the four specific areas outlined by the GRA.
They went all in holding a 2 and a 7 against biology that had picked aces. That the Scottish court even considered ruling in favour seems ridiculous, not just in hindsight but even at the time.
6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
The RN would 100% do tow backs if ordered. If only because the CinC, Fleet who pulled it off would be a certainty for elevation to 1SL. If it worked, it would be career steroids for all involved so they would give it a red hot go.
The Australian Navy did 30+ tow backs without drowning anybody. After that, they didn't have to do any more because the boats stopped. So the processes and techniques for doing it are well understood and tested.
I'm surprised that Sunak didn't give it a go then.
We are more squeamish than the Aussies and we tie ourselves up in gordian knots of legal red-tape, not helped by the fact there are no purely international waters in the Dover Strait.
The Aussies have a lot more distance between them and the source of their boat migrants relative to us.
Making it clear that Australia would not accept people arriving via boats made sense when a fair percentage die on the x000 mile journey that is required.
Dover Calais is 20 miles by sea a distance a hobby sailor can do with little difficulty.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
As I have said many times, there is a geopolitical logic, and even a geopolitical excitement, to a UK-Canadian alliance that would comprise a single market, freedom of movement, and joint defence and energy strategy. Canada would co-hold the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
CANZAUK is the future for all four countries IMO. Not a political union like the EU but joined up thinking on a lot more than what we do today and a common approach to trade matters. It would create a $7.5tn trading power who are all mostly aligned in cultural outlook and values.
I agree. Tho Free Movement and some kind of joint citizenship would be nice
Hmm, I think they wouldn't want it because of our, err, demographic issues we've created over the past 5 years with mass migration and illegal immigrants. Though maybe some kind of lesser requirements to get work visas.
I'd also love to get Aussie beef in the UK, it's so good in the smoker.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
It was about whether you agreed that Julia should now refrain from using female facilities.
6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
The RN would 100% do tow backs if ordered. If only because the CinC, Fleet who pulled it off would be a certainty for elevation to 1SL. If it worked, it would be career steroids for all involved so they would give it a red hot go.
The Australian Navy did 30+ tow backs without drowning anybody. After that, they didn't have to do any more because the boats stopped. So the processes and techniques for doing it are well understood and tested.
I'm surprised that Sunak didn't give it a go then.
We are more squeamish than the Aussies and we tie ourselves up in gordian knots of legal red-tape, not helped by the fact there are no purely international waters in the Dover Strait.
The Aussies have a lot more distance between them and the source of their boat migrants relative to us.
Making it clear that Australia would not accept people arriving via boats made sense when a fair percentage die on the x000 mile journey that is required.
Dover Calais is 20 miles by sea a distance a hobby sailor can do with little difficulty.
But, that's little more than punishment for geography.
We can't tow ourselves another 100 miles offshore.
There has been a massive amount of trans hatred online over the last couple of days.
Anyone who denies trans people exist, or want to make being trans impossible, can fuck right off.
Getting your panties in a bunch Josias, calm down dear.
Nah, not really.
Seriously Malc; you should read some of the stuff that's out there. If this continues another trans person will end up being killed.
This is the new world, where trans people are all just pretending. Hence the very deliberate language in the header about “sad trans identified men”. The sneery dismissal oozing out, which reminds me a little of the Russian attitude to “so called Ukrainians” with their pretend country.
It’s like the olden days when being gay was “just a phase”.
Cyclefree has always been deep inside Gender Crit circles - in case that wasn’t already obvious. This is the language GCs have always used amongst themselves. Now she feels free to use it in public.
You played for high stakes, and lost.
Suck it up.
This is it really, the activists tried to expand the meaning of woman beyond XX and failed, now it literally means XX other than the four specific areas outlined by the GRA.
They went all in holding a 2 and a 7 against biology that had picked aces. That the Scottish court even considered ruling in favour seems ridiculous, not just in hindsight but even at the time.
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
As I have said many times, there is a geopolitical logic, and even a geopolitical excitement, to a UK-Canadian alliance that would comprise a single market, freedom of movement, and joint defence and energy strategy. Canada would co-hold the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
Thanks you to whoever posted the link to the French Leader debates. I thought I'd challenge myself with the French version. I wish French TV presenters spoke as slowly and clearly as the host.
Maybe it's me but I'm finding the Quebecois accent easier to follow than standard French!
The most disturbing thing about the recent film was the utterly awful sexual intercourse he had.
Thank you for reminding those trying to forget.
Every single battle and political incident was deliberately, and massively, wrong.
A man of demonstrable, proven charismatic leadership was portrayed as a moody teenager who couldn’t have led a drunk to a pub.
The bizarre interview without coffee on HMS Victory with Rupert Everett playing Stephen Fry playing the Duke of Wellington in a deleted scene from Blackadder was quite special.
If Canada and the UK and Oz etc do unite we must surely call it the
Federal Union of Commonwealth Kingdoms
Such limited amibitions, Leon!
Sunil's Greater Anglosphere would include:
UK UK Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Isle of Man) UK Overseas Territories (14) UK Commonwealth Realms (11 exc. Aus/Can/NZ/UK) Ireland USA US Territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Marianas, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands) US Associated States (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau) Canada Australia Australian Territories (three) Nauru (dependent on Aus for Defence) NZ NZ Territory of Tokelau NZ Associated States (Niue, Cook Islands) Samoa (dependent on NZ for Defence) Kiribati (dependent on both Aus and NZ for defence)
There has been a massive amount of trans hatred online over the last couple of days.
Anyone who denies trans people exist, or want to make being trans impossible, can fuck right off.
Getting your panties in a bunch Josias, calm down dear.
Nah, not really.
Seriously Malc; you should read some of the stuff that's out there. If this continues another trans person will end up being killed.
This is the new world, where trans people are all just pretending. Hence the very deliberate language in the header about “sad trans identified men”. The sneery dismissal oozing out, which reminds me a little of the Russian attitude to “so called Ukrainians” with their pretend country.
It’s like the olden days when being gay was “just a phase”.
Cyclefree has always been deep inside Gender Crit circles - in case that wasn’t already obvious. This is the language GCs have always used amongst themselves. Now she feels free to use it in public.
You played for high stakes, and lost.
Suck it up.
I have always been nothing more than an interested outside observer to this particular battle: My own personal views on transness & what was sensibly achievable politically would no doubt have had me thrown out of most leftist circles. (At one point a forum I was on got into an extended outrage cycle over whether it was permissible to use “transwoman” or “trans woman” (Note the space) - I think I mentally checked out entirely from that space at that point, although it took a few more years before I gave up on it altogether as a lost cause.)
6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
The RN would 100% do tow backs if ordered. If only because the CinC, Fleet who pulled it off would be a certainty for elevation to 1SL. If it worked, it would be career steroids for all involved so they would give it a red hot go.
The Australian Navy did 30+ tow backs without drowning anybody. After that, they didn't have to do any more because the boats stopped. So the processes and techniques for doing it are well understood and tested.
I'm surprised that Sunak didn't give it a go then.
We are more squeamish than the Aussies and we tie ourselves up in gordian knots of legal red-tape, not helped by the fact there are no purely international waters in the Dover Strait.
The Aussies have a lot more distance between them and the source of their boat migrants relative to us.
Making it clear that Australia would not accept people arriving via boats made sense when a fair percentage die on the x000 mile journey that is required.
Dover Calais is 20 miles by sea a distance a hobby sailor can do with little difficulty.
But, that's little more than punishment for geography.
We can't tow ourselves another 100 miles offshore.
Listening to that Mark Carney interview I linked earlier, a couple of notes.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth. - Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
As I have said many times, there is a geopolitical logic, and even a geopolitical excitement, to a UK-Canadian alliance that would comprise a single market, freedom of movement, and joint defence and energy strategy. Canada would co-hold the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
Would Canadians *want* FoM with the UK though?
They have historically had liberal immigration policies, even more liberal than the UK’s. I reckon they’d welcome a source of immigration that is relatively much more culturally simpatico than other sources they’ve been tapping.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
The RN would 100% do tow backs if ordered. If only because the CinC, Fleet who pulled it off would be a certainty for elevation to 1SL. If it worked, it would be career steroids for all involved so they would give it a red hot go.
The Australian Navy did 30+ tow backs without drowning anybody. After that, they didn't have to do any more because the boats stopped. So the processes and techniques for doing it are well understood and tested.
I'm surprised that Sunak didn't give it a go then.
We are more squeamish than the Aussies and we tie ourselves up in gordian knots of legal red-tape, not helped by the fact there are no purely international waters in the Dover Strait.
The Aussies have a lot more distance between them and the source of their boat migrants relative to us.
Making it clear that Australia would not accept people arriving via boats made sense when a fair percentage die on the x000 mile journey that is required.
Dover Calais is 20 miles by sea a distance a hobby sailor can do with little difficulty.
But, that's little more than punishment for geography.
We can't tow ourselves another 100 miles offshore.
You could tow them west to international waters, then fuck them off in a lifeboat with only enough fuel to reach France. Give one of the refugees a few grand to skipper it. That's how the Australian tow backs worked.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
So, peering through the blather, you recognise and decry this as a major reversal of trans rights and blame it on the hyperactive zealotry of those campaigning to extend them too far.
Thank you for your article @Cyclefree. You made an error of fact/elision, namely "Tax KC Jolyon Maugham complained bitterly that the court refused to hear from trans groups. An outright lie. As he wrote last year none applied to intervene". Maugham's GoodLawProject filed its application for intervention on behalf of the trans people Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle on 13/9/24[1]. It was denied and none of the lawyers, intervenors nor judges were trans.
Whilst Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle do not constitute a trans group individually (though possibly collectively), they are certainly trans people, so I think it's true to say that the Supreme Court refused to hear from trans people.
Utter bollox, what clown thinks that we have to have trans judges and lawyers to decide what a woman is, this country is full of absolute nutters.
Victoria McCloud is trans and was a trans judge.
Not sure your point , mine was in response to the bollox that the case had no trans lawyers and judges and so biased. As long as they are judge's first and foremost I don't give a toss what they do in their private life if legal.
Viewcode’s original point was that the court did indeed refuse to take evidence from trans people, as a direct counter to Cyclefree’s claim that trans groups didn’t apply to intervene. His additional point that none of the lawyers or judges involved were trans either was simply to underline that this SC decision was made without any input from trans people whatsoever.
You seem to have glommed on to the judge / lawyer thing instead of the wider point that the court made no effort to include the voice of trans people in any capacity whatsoever, on a case that touches every aspect of their lives.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
So, peering through the blather, you recognise and decry this as a major reversal of trans rights and blame it on the hyperactive zealotry of those campaigning to extend them too far.
I have it?
It’s ‘Trump is the fault of Woke libtards, not the people who voted for him’ all over again.
If Canada and the UK and Oz etc do unite we must surely call it the
Federal Union of Commonwealth Kingdoms
Such limited amibitions, Leon!
Sunil's Greater Anglosphere would include:
UK UK Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Isle of Man) UK Overseas Territories (14) UK Commonwealth Realms (11 exc. Aus/Can/NZ/UK) Ireland USA US Territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Marianas, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands) US Associated States (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau) Canada Australia Australian Territories (three) Nauru (dependent on Aus for Defence) NZ NZ Territory of Tokelau NZ Associated States (Niue, Cook Islands) Samoa (dependent on NZ for Defence) Kiribati (dependent on both Aus and NZ for defence)
Would "Anglosphere" wash in Ireland?
I think they would do something analogous to the French reversing acronyms - OTAN, UE, ONU, CEE ...
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
Even Canada is hardly popping down to the shops geography-wise, and we are culturally closer to our antipodean chums who play cricket and rugby and can sing the theme songs to Neighbours and Skippy.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
The UK's future lies in good links with Nigeria and India, populous countries where English is widely spoken and with large growing educated middle classes.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
Even Canada is hardly popping down to the shops geography-wise, and we are culturally closer to our antipodean chums who play cricket and rugby and can sing the theme songs to Neighbours and Skippy.
London-Toronto is roughly the same distance as New York-Los Angeles.
Canada is also right behind the GIUK gap, the UK’s naval choke point.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
The UK's future lies in good links with Nigeria and India, populous countries where English is widely spoken and with large growing educated middle classes.
The Indians appear to hate the British, as rising Indian (or Hindi) nationalism seems to go hand-in-hand with revisionist accounts of the Raj.
If Canada and the UK and Oz etc do unite we must surely call it the
Federal Union of Commonwealth Kingdoms
Such limited amibitions, Leon!
Sunil's Greater Anglosphere would include:
UK UK Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Isle of Man) UK Overseas Territories (14) UK Commonwealth Realms (11 exc. Aus/Can/NZ/UK) Ireland USA US Territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Marianas, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands) US Associated States (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau) Canada Australia Australian Territories (three) Nauru (dependent on Aus for Defence) NZ NZ Territory of Tokelau NZ Associated States (Niue, Cook Islands) Samoa (dependent on NZ for Defence) Kiribati (dependent on both Aus and NZ for defence)
Would "Anglosphere" wash in Ireland?
I think they would do something analogous to the French reversing acronyms - OTAN, UE, ONU, CEE ...
Power would be devolved to Ireland and all the States directly from the Federal Government. Of course what this would mean would be no more UK or USA as independent nations, but a federation of - checks notes - 128 individual States.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
So, peering through the blather, you recognise and decry this as a major reversal of trans rights and blame it on the hyperactive zealotry of those campaigning to extend them too far.
I have it?
Not legally so much but in terms of public opinion, which can be more impotent than the law, then definitely
See the polls I linked above. The public is now much more hostile to trans rights than it was four years ago. My friend Julia was and is right
What’s more we are seeing the same thing in another area of Wokeness. Racial politics. Up until about 20 years ago I believe we had a pretty good balance in the UK. Far from perfect but a kind of settlement - racism was universally seen as abhorrent but migration was managed, multiculturalism kinda worked for all its many flaws
Now immigration has been pushed to insane levels, multiculturalism has palpably failed, and at the same time the left is pushing for even more crazy laws - legalised racism against white people, two tier policing and sentencing - disfavouring whites
The result will be the same as the trans debate (but much more significant as it will affect all). Eventually there will be a pushback - either from the law or public opinion or both - and racial minorities in the UK will end up in a far worse position than hitherto, with fewer rights and much greater hostility from the host nation
Question for the legal minds on here: If a cis woman is to be strip-searched by the BTP, how does she prove that she's not trans?
It seems like the Supreme Court think they have decided the difference between men and women on biology, but as their comments about excluding trans men from female-only spaces shows, they are setting the line on appearance. I fear that many cis women will fall on the wrong side of that dividing line.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
Yes, I've noticed that. You give them an inch, these leaver beavers, they take a mile.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
The UK's future lies in good links with Nigeria and India, populous countries where English is widely spoken and with large growing educated middle classes.
@Gardenwalker is unfortunately right. India is quite hostile to the UK - at least on a government basis and amongst Hindu nationalists
Can’t really blame them. We ruled their country - often quite brutally - for 250 years and in living memory. Cricket doesn’t really make up for it
The relationship with the old white dominions is entirely different, which is why FUCK - the federal Union of commonwealth kingdoms - might work
It would also lead to funny banter on battlefields when our new federal army invades America
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate...But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat....
I realise that your misfiring synapses make you think your poo smells of purple violets and is carried away by pixies singing softly, but in real life toilet functions are grotesque.
But I digress. Your answer is indicative and unsurprising: your friend has a "your friend Laurel" exception which excuses her from the SC ruling. You may recall my "history of gambling" article, which I'm sure you got the pixies to read to you. In it I pointed out how the British State resolves issues like this: the rich do as they will, the middle classes get what they can, the poor suffer as they must. Both you and RochdalePioneers' responses reflect this.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate...But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat....
I realise that your misfiring synapses make you think your poo smells of purple violets and is carried away by pixies singing softly, but in real life toilet functions are grotesque.
But I digress. Your answer is indicative and unsurprising: your friend has a "your friend Laurel" exception which excuses her from the SC ruling. You may recall my "history of gambling" article, which I'm sure you got the pixies to read to you. In it I pointed out how the British State resolves issues like this: the rich do as they will, the middle classes get what they can, the poor suffer as they must. Both you and RochdalePioneers' responses reflect this.
The most disturbing thing about the recent film was the utterly awful sexual intercourse he had.
Thank you for reminding those trying to forget.
Every single battle and political incident was deliberately, and massively, wrong.
A man of demonstrable, proven charismatic leadership was portrayed as a moody teenager who couldn’t have led a drunk to a pub.
The bizarre interview without coffee on HMS Victory with Rupert Everett playing Stephen Fry playing the Duke of Wellington in a deleted scene from Blackadder was quite special.
It was terrible.
The Battle of Austerlitz being a particular abomination.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate...But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat....
I realise that your misfiring synapses make you think your poo smells of purple violets and is carried away by pixies singing softly, but in real life toilet functions are grotesque.
But I digress. Your answer is indicative and unsurprising: your friend has a "your friend Laurel" exception which excuses her from the SC ruling. You may recall my "history of gambling" article, which I'm sure you got the pixies to read to you. In it I pointed out how the British State resolves issues like this: the rich do as they will, the middle classes get what they can, the poor suffer as they must. Both you and RochdalePioneers' responses reflect this.
This is just weird now. Talk to someone else. Thanks
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
Even Canada is hardly popping down to the shops geography-wise, and we are culturally closer to our antipodean chums who play cricket and rugby and can sing the theme songs to Neighbours and Skippy.
London-Toronto is roughly the same distance as New York-Los Angeles.
Canada is also right behind the GIUK gap, the UK’s naval choke point.
OK, pop quiz, hot shots!
Which is the longer distance?
Washington, DC to Honolulu? Washington, DC to London, UK?
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate...But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat....
I realise that your misfiring synapses make you think your poo smells of purple violets and is carried away by pixies singing softly, but in real life toilet functions are grotesque.
But I digress. Your answer is indicative and unsurprising: your friend has a "your friend Laurel" exception which excuses her from the SC ruling. You may recall my "history of gambling" article, which I'm sure you got the pixies to read to you. In it I pointed out how the British State resolves issues like this: the rich do as they will, the middle classes get what they can, the poor suffer as they must. Both you and RochdalePioneers' responses reflect this.
Why are you talking about poo?
I wanted to find out whether Leon's friend shat in the girls loos or the boys loos. He said it was grotesque. I said he thought his poo smelt of purple violets and was carried away by pixies. It's been an odd day. Why do you ask?
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
So, peering through the blather, you recognise and decry this as a major reversal of trans rights and blame it on the hyperactive zealotry of those campaigning to extend them too far.
I have it?
Not legally so much but in terms of public opinion, which can be more impotent than the law, then definitely
See the polls I linked above. The public is now much more hostile to trans rights than it was four years ago. My friend Julia was and is right
What’s more we are seeing the same thing in another area of Wokeness. Racial politics. Up until about 20 years ago I believe we had a pretty good balance in the UK. Far from perfect but a kind of settlement - racism was universally seen as abhorrent but migration was managed, multiculturalism kinda worked for all its many flaws
Now immigration has been pushed to insane levels, multiculturalism has palpably failed, and at the same time the left is pushing for even more crazy laws - legalised racism against white people, two tier policing and sentencing - disfavouring whites
The result will be the same as the trans debate (but much more significant as it will affect all). Eventually there will be a pushback - either from the law or public opinion or both - and racial minorities in the UK will end up in a far worse position than hitherto, with fewer rights and much greater hostility from the host nation
Ok, I disagree (quite strongly if you must know) but I get your drift. Minorities need to tiptoe their way to full equality and acceptance. Otherwise it will backfire and they'll end up with less of it.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate...But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat....
I realise that your misfiring synapses make you think your poo smells of purple violets and is carried away by pixies singing softly, but in real life toilet functions are grotesque.
But I digress. Your answer is indicative and unsurprising: your friend has a "your friend Laurel" exception which excuses her from the SC ruling. You may recall my "history of gambling" article, which I'm sure you got the pixies to read to you. In it I pointed out how the British State resolves issues like this: the rich do as they will, the middle classes get what they can, the poor suffer as they must. Both you and RochdalePioneers' responses reflect this.
Why are you talking about poo?
I wanted to find out whether Leon's friend shat in the girls loos or the boys loos. He said it was grotesque. I said he thought his poo smelt of purple violets and was carried away by pixies. It's been an odd day. Why do you ask?
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate...But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat....
I realise that your misfiring synapses make you think your poo smells of purple violets and is carried away by pixies singing softly, but in real life toilet functions are grotesque.
But I digress. Your answer is indicative and unsurprising: your friend has a "your friend Laurel" exception which excuses her from the SC ruling. You may recall my "history of gambling" article, which I'm sure you got the pixies to read to you. In it I pointed out how the British State resolves issues like this: the rich do as they will, the middle classes get what they can, the poor suffer as they must. Both you and RochdalePioneers' responses reflect this.
Why are you talking about poo?
I wanted to find out whether Leon's friend shat in the girls loos or the boys loos. He said it was grotesque. I said he thought his poo smelt of purple violets and was carried away by pixies. It's been an odd day. Why do you ask?
Because it makes you sound mentally ill.
How do I talk about toilets without mentioning it? I'm not American.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
So, peering through the blather, you recognise and decry this as a major reversal of trans rights and blame it on the hyperactive zealotry of those campaigning to extend them too far.
I have it?
It’s ‘Trump is the fault of Woke libtards, not the people who voted for him’ all over again.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
So, peering through the blather, you recognise and decry this as a major reversal of trans rights and blame it on the hyperactive zealotry of those campaigning to extend them too far.
I have it?
It’s ‘Trump is the fault of Woke libtards, not the people who voted for him’ all over again.
People voted for him because of Woke libtards.
This really isn't difficult.
When I spoke to my colleagues in Texas, they cited advertising about woke libtards as Trump’s primary campaign message.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
Everytime I post about UK-Canada, people want to add Australia-NZ.
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
One can read too much into that.
The Royal Navy was fully preoccupied until late 1944 with the invasions across the Channel and the Mediterranean, and containing Tirpitz.
Once that was done, it quickly assembled the largest fleet we ever put to sea in the Pacific.
It was the Fall of France that strategically fucked us, because we then had to face off against the German, Italian and Japanese navies all at the same time with the risk the French Navy, one never assumed to be hostile, would fall into the hands of the other side.
If Canada and the UK and Oz etc do unite we must surely call it the
Federal Union of Commonwealth Kingdoms
Perhaps we could all display Federal Union of Commonwealth Kingdoms Employment Rights as a post nominal, to show the freedom of movement, in our passports?
Given our history, I think many countries would happily address us using it.
If Canada and the UK and Oz etc do unite we must surely call it the
Federal Union of Commonwealth Kingdoms
Greater Britain
Empire Redux.
The Making the Globe Pink Again Empire. Perhaps they could even get a float at Pride parades.
Except this new bloc has a strong hetero vibe. It's all the countries Bond would have considered sound minus the USA.
Canada provided for same sex marriage in 2005, the fourth country in the world to do so. The UK in 2014, the fourteenth.
It is not yet legal in India or Nigeria.
After Bond's time, that. But yes, Canada is a relatively progressive and liberal country, isn't it. Another eg, they are very advanced on assisted dying.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
You absolutely implied I was lying. Any pb-er can read for themselves upthread. Turns out I wasn’t lying, you were, and now you’re lying about your lying
A good days work. Well done
Thank you. But I'm afraid you are incorrect. In fact, you are lying about me lying about your lying about me lying.
In all the kerfuffle he never did answer your question. Method in the madness.
This malodorous fuckmuppet @viewcode was falsely accusing me of lies in a fairly odious way. I wasn’t even aware of a question
The question was as follows:
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
You become more grotesque with each iteration of this debate
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
So, peering through the blather, you recognise and decry this as a major reversal of trans rights and blame it on the hyperactive zealotry of those campaigning to extend them too far.
I have it?
It’s ‘Trump is the fault of Woke libtards, not the people who voted for him’ all over again.
People voted for him because of Woke libtards.
This really isn't difficult.
There are lots of Americans who pretend to be very concerned with women's rights when it comes to trans people, who are absolutely silent when *their* side tramples over the rights of women. And the rights of women are being utterly trampled over in the USA.
Comments
The truth is that trans is just the stick being used to beat people with today. Tomorrow will be a different stick. The two sides calling each other twats on here don't really care about this issue, they just know they are right and want to attack anyone who has a different opinion because they are WRONG.
Carney is comparing the impact on the USA of Trump's tariffs to the impact on the UK of Brexit. He is considering how can the impact be minimised if the initial impact is treated as a sun cost (which it is), and the USA recovers a measure of sanity.
He is thinking about a post-USA-going-isolationist trading system, and how it would be created - with the hope that in due course a USA that has regained sanity might disengage.
A couple of things at the base of his thinking that I have not reflected on:
- Canada is in the Francophonie (French 'commonwealth') as well as the British-anchored Commonwealth.
- Canada has very significant internal economic inefficiencies due to Balkanisation between provinces - to the extent that Brexit affected the UK economy. Removing those is part of his 'recover from tariffs' plan, linked with internal generation of economic activity. He did not comment on the impact on national debt, which in Canada is 107% of GDP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V11qNDDElZw
https://x.com/Out5p0ken/status/1912963468941992244
Video embedded in tweet. Donald Trump channels his inner Um Bongo.
A good days work. Well done
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2025/10.html
How to lose your friends / party once we launch the channel early next week...
Then again, it's one issue. I agree with him on a lot of stuff.
Suck it up.
At a stroke, UK-Canada becomes a clear fourth pole in the global order alongside U.S., China and the EU, with India emerging as a fifth.
The great strength of this judgment is its clarity. The hybrid solution that the Inner House had come up with in Scotland where sometimes women means biological woman and sometimes it means biological woman plus GRC holders and sometimes it even means biological women + GRC holders plus those who identify as women was frankly an incomprehensible mess which made giving clear advice on any given set of facts almost impossible.
Its weaknesses have been explored on this thread today and I have found the various contributions interesting. The Court did emphasise that transgenderism is a protected characteristic and they continue to have the right not to be discriminated against. I suspect the next wave of litigation will be trying to put some meat on that statement. If a GRC does not make a man a woman what does it do? What does the right not to be discriminated against mean in the real world? It certainly does not mean that someone's sex has changed "for all purposes" as set out in s9 of the 2004 Act. Baroness Falkner was asked this on R4 yesterday morning. She suggested, for example, that if someone was dismissed because they were transgender then they would have a claim. It will be interesting to see how far that can go.
https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/discussions/napoleon-bonapartes-292963/
The media have failed to explain the decision properly. The SC simply clarified a section of the Equalities Act in relation to a woman for the purpose of that Act .
If the government wanted to alter the law and say a woman can be both biological sex at birth and a man who has transitioned they could do that.
Labour though should leave this matter alone now .
It's up to the Government and Parliament to sort out this mess, but I have little hope they will. Democratic government here (and in too many other places) increasing resembles two wolves and a rabbit voting on who's for dinner.
They went all in holding a 2 and a 7 against biology that had picked aces. That the Scottish court even considered ruling in favour seems ridiculous, not just in hindsight but even at the time.
Making it clear that Australia would not accept people arriving via boats made sense when a fair percentage die on the x000 mile journey that is required.
Dover Calais is 20 miles by sea a distance a hobby sailor can do with little difficulty.
"...But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?..."
And this is the third time I have asked you today, and the fourth time since the ruling. (The "your friend Lauren" refers to RochdalePioneer's insistence that his trans woman friend Lauren should be allowed to use the girls' loos because reasons)
I'd also love to get Aussie beef in the UK, it's so good in the smoker.
Federal Union of Commonwealth Kingdoms
We can't tow ourselves another 100 miles offshore.
Do you go around asking your friends - especially those of a trans disposition - “hey, where do you actually shit”? Do you? If you do I suspect you’re like several other PBers and have almost zero friends. And here we see why. Perhaps you could get a dog, or talk to @kinabalu. He needs a friend too
Amazingly enough I’m never going to ask a good friend - one of many good friends I am lucky to have - “hey where do you shit”
But if forced to hazard a guess I’d say 99.99% she uses the ladies because she is a post op trans woman and presents zero threat. You might claim this is some logical inconsistency and perhaps it is, but until about five years ago I believe this was all self policing and worked as well as such a thing can. Humanity is not logical or perfect
But then came along a bunch of weird men who wanted access to women’s only spaces while remaining - sometimes obviously - men. And for some bizarre reason half the woke left decided to support these lunatic cranks - and have now met with disaster
Maybe it's me but I'm finding the Quebecois accent easier to follow than standard French!
Every single battle and political incident was deliberately, and massively, wrong.
A man of demonstrable, proven charismatic leadership was portrayed as a moody teenager who couldn’t have led a drunk to a pub.
The bizarre interview without coffee on HMS Victory with Rupert Everett playing Stephen Fry playing the Duke of Wellington in a deleted scene from Blackadder was quite special.
Who the hell would want it?? Except maybe Napoleon, and it's not much use to him these days.
https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/discussions/napoleon-bonapartes-292963/
Sunil's Greater Anglosphere would include:
UK
UK Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Isle of Man)
UK Overseas Territories (14)
UK Commonwealth Realms (11 exc. Aus/Can/NZ/UK)
Ireland
USA
US Territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Marianas, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands)
US Associated States (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau)
Canada
Australia
Australian Territories (three)
Nauru (dependent on Aus for Defence)
NZ
NZ Territory of Tokelau
NZ Associated States (Niue, Cook Islands)
Samoa (dependent on NZ for Defence)
Kiribati (dependent on both Aus and NZ for defence)
There is probably a case for stronger links of some sort, but there is no geopolitical logic. The South Pacific is too far from the North Atlantic, as New Zealanders learned with the fall of Singapore.
Perhaps they could even get a float at Pride parades.
I have it?
You seem to have glommed on to the judge / lawyer thing instead of the wider point that the court made no effort to include the voice of trans people in any capacity whatsoever, on a case that touches every aspect of their lives.
I think they would do something analogous to the French reversing acronyms - OTAN, UE, ONU, CEE ...
Canada is also right behind the GIUK gap, the UK’s naval choke point.
See the polls I linked above. The public is now much more hostile to trans rights than it was four years ago. My friend Julia was and is right
What’s more we are seeing the same thing in another area of Wokeness. Racial politics. Up until about 20 years ago I believe we had a pretty good balance in the UK. Far from perfect but a kind of settlement - racism was universally seen as abhorrent but migration was managed, multiculturalism kinda worked for all its many flaws
Now immigration has been pushed to insane levels, multiculturalism has palpably failed, and at the same time the left is pushing for even more crazy laws - legalised racism against white people, two tier policing and sentencing - disfavouring whites
The result will be the same as the trans debate (but much more significant as it will affect all). Eventually there will be a pushback - either from the law or public opinion or both - and racial minorities in the UK will end up in a far worse position than hitherto, with fewer rights and much greater hostility from the host nation
If a cis woman is to be strip-searched by the BTP, how does she prove that she's not trans?
It seems like the Supreme Court think they have decided the difference between men and women on biology, but as their comments about excluding trans men from female-only spaces shows, they are setting the line on appearance. I fear that many cis women will fall on the wrong side of that dividing line.
It is not yet legal in India or Nigeria.
Can’t really blame them. We ruled their country - often quite brutally - for 250 years and in living memory. Cricket doesn’t really make up for it
The relationship with the old white dominions is entirely different, which is why FUCK - the federal Union of commonwealth kingdoms - might work
It would also lead to funny banter on battlefields when our new federal army invades America
“They’re invading sir”
“Who, the FUCK?”
“Get the FUCK outa here!!!”
Etc
But I digress. Your answer is indicative and unsurprising: your friend has a "your friend Laurel" exception which excuses her from the SC ruling. You may recall my "history of gambling" article, which I'm sure you got the pixies to read to you. In it I pointed out how the British State resolves issues like this: the rich do as they will, the middle classes get what they can, the poor suffer as they must. Both you and RochdalePioneers' responses reflect this.
The Battle of Austerlitz being a particular abomination.
Which is the longer distance?
Washington, DC to Honolulu?
Washington, DC to London, UK?
This really isn't difficult.
Hope we're all enjoying the start of the long Easter weekend?
I very much hope that your health is improving and that you will soon be well.
The Royal Navy was fully preoccupied until late 1944 with the invasions across the Channel and the Mediterranean, and containing Tirpitz.
Once that was done, it quickly assembled the largest fleet we ever put to sea in the Pacific.
It was the Fall of France that strategically fucked us, because we then had to face off against the German, Italian and Japanese navies all at the same time with the risk the French Navy, one never assumed to be hostile, would fall into the hands of the other side.
Given our history, I think many countries would happily address us using it.