I visited IllicitEncounters.com so you don’t have to – politicalbetting.com

viewcode said:

Taz said:

Hey, all you PB centrists, still some tickets left for this doozy.

https://www.aegpresents.co.uk/event/electoral-dysfunction-live/

This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with people gathered around a table with microphones and a neon sign asking "But what does this all mean"?

Alphabet_Soup said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

AnneJGP said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

(4/5)

Why can’t there just be a trans sport category?

I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?

What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?

That depends on how you define transgender, and trans in general. At the last census, 0.5% described themselves as transgender. The government estimates 200,000-500,000
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3a478240f0b64603fc181b/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

But the rest of your post stinks. What other minorities would you allow discrimination against to avoid 'subverting history'? The disabled? Jews? People named Derek?

We're not talking about hate crime - we're talking about men participating in women's sport. Maybe they could do something else instead?

Alphabet_Soup said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

AnneJGP said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

(4/5)

Why can’t there just be a trans sport category?

I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?

What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?

That depends on how you define transgender, and trans in general. At the last census, 0.5% described themselves as transgender. The government estimates 200,000-500,000
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3a478240f0b64603fc181b/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

But the rest of your post stinks. What other minorities would you allow discrimination against to avoid 'subverting history'? The disabled? Jews? People named Derek?

We're not talking about hate crime - we're talking about men participating in women's sport. Maybe they could do something else instead?

JosiasJessop said:

carnforth said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

AnneJGP said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

(4/5)

Why can’t there just be a trans sport category?

I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?

What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?

That depends on how you define transgender, and trans in general. At the last census, 0.5% described themselves as transgender. The government estimates 200,000-500,000
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3a478240f0b64603fc181b/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

Turns out that was old people and foreigners misunderstanding the question:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/sep/12/official-estimate-trans-population-england-wales-ons

AIUI the 200-500,000 estimate predates the census by a few years, and is not based on it. From memory, a similar percentage reported being transgender in Scotland, with a different question.

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

(1/5)

The UNHCR has endorsed Labour’s plan to deport failed asylum seekers to 'return hubs' in third countries.

This is a significant development because it was the UNHCR which ultimately collapsed the Rwanda scheme: https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1913352681583767872

Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?

No.

They will keep coming. We just need to accept no major party really wants to stop it, whatever they say, and plan for it and put the infrastructure in place. Both regular migration and illegal immigration.

Sunak tightened visa wage requirements for migrants and stopped them bringing dependents.

Reform back the navy in the channel to stop the boats and mass deportations

Sunak didn’t stop illegal migration and merely slowed down the massive increase due to the Boriswave.

Even Boris ended EU free movement and Sunak did raise the minimum wage required to get a visa to £38k which was higher than it had been under any government this century.

The only way to stop illegal migration completely would be gunboats to blow up migrant boats crossing the channel which obviously no sane party other than the most hardline wing of Reform would back

Theuniondivvie said:

Roger said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anyway, derailing the thread: on my morning walk, I came across something on the pavement that I cannot, in all my 52 years, recall seeing before.



It was a snail with two shells, the other on top, and fused to, the bottom one. And before anyone says, I am pretty sure that it was not two snails copulating. The top shell was badly damaged on one side, but rather than being broken it seems to have grown deformed (or damage repaired). The patterning on the top shell matched, and aligned with, the bottom shell. There is a possibility that the damage is the remains of a third shell.

Aside from this, it seemed to look like, and sized as, a common garden snail. A quick Google doesn't seem to produce any reasons for this. Does anyone have any ideas?

I read that snails don't grow new shells as I thought but rather add to the existing one. Perhaps the process went a little haywire?
A first for me this am, two squirrels (grey natürlich) copulating in the garden. Not sure how I feel about that.

Fantastic animals. All with their own distinct personality. If you don't already try getting to know them. Very rewarding

Oh, I love the squirrels, endlessly entertaining, don't even begrudge them the handy chunk of bird seed they consume. It was just this am the chase me, chase me, ended in u-know-what. Hopefully their gender certificates were in order.

carnforth said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

(1/5)

The UNHCR has endorsed Labour’s plan to deport failed asylum seekers to 'return hubs' in third countries.

This is a significant development because it was the UNHCR which ultimately collapsed the Rwanda scheme: https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1913352681583767872

Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?

Not with the grant rate at three times the level of France or whatever it is. Still worth making the crossing with it at that. And quite possibly the useless Home Office would grant even more just to prevent the poor lambs being sent away.

In combination with a cap on asylum granting numbers, resulting in a serious crackdown on acceptance rates, getting them well below France and Germany, yes I think it would work.

Have we begun to think through our policy on asylum seekers who are USA citizens? At this rate of progress there are going to be a lot.

My sister in law is considering Portugal.

They've been cracking down, so she'll have to do paperwork. It used to be possible to self certify, and the income threshold was tiny.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/portugal-no-longer-safe-haven-134412781.html

viewcode said:

MarqueeMark said:

viewcode said:

Taz said:

Hey, all you PB centrists, still some tickets left for this doozy.

https://www.aegpresents.co.uk/event/electoral-dysfunction-live/

This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with people gathered around a table with microphones and a neon sign asking "But what does this all mean"?

It means there are no jobs remaining for pundits.

Probably worth the end of Earth's DNA pool.

I think this proves Turchin's surplus elites. We have reached such a level of decadence that we have hundreds (thousands) of people with too much money and time bending eagerly over a microphone giving their reckons ...

...or, come to think of it, posting to PB.

Damn

(punches self in face)

Jim_Miller said:

On how many "trans" people there are: Here's from the description at Amazon of Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage 'Until just a few years ago, gender dysphoria—severe discomfort in one’s biological sex—was vanishingly rare. It was typically found in less than .01 percent of the population, emerged in early childhood, and afflicted males almost exclusively.

But today whole groups of female friends in colleges, high schools, and even middle schools across the country are coming out as “transgender.” These are girls who had never experienced any discomfort in their biological sex until they heard a coming-out story from a speaker at a school assembly or discovered the internet community of trans “influencers.”'

Be interesting to know whether there are similar trends in the UK.

FWIW, Amazon refused to sell a similar book, written by a man, and refused to let the publisher advertise the Shrier book on its site. (I bought the first as a protest, but haven't gotten around to reading it.)

GIN1138 said:

How the hell can Piers Morgan be Britains sexiest man???

kle4 said:

Battlebus said:

Nigelb said:

Given the US is now ending military aid to Ukraine anyway - and seems to be refusing requests for future arms sales to Ukraine - this gives every incentive for Russia to continue its invasion.

Trump says US will 'pass' on Ukraine peace talks if no progress soon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x5xn1g92o

According to ISW, Russia/Putin have not changed their stance since 2022. They may say different things to different parties but the underlying thrust is to continue until Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity is removed. No different from how they have behaved over centuries to other ethnic groups to which they have taken a dislike.

Without American support to Ukraine presumably Russia feel they can press slowly forward and at the least end up with even more territory than they currently hold. Vance I am sure can realise that, but who the heck knows what Trump thinks about it beyond disliking Ukraine and liking Putin.

MarqueeMark said:

viewcode said:

Taz said:

Hey, all you PB centrists, still some tickets left for this doozy.

https://www.aegpresents.co.uk/event/electoral-dysfunction-live/

This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with people gathered around a table with microphones and a neon sign asking "But what does this all mean"?

It means there are no jobs remaining for pundits.

Probably worth the end of Earth's DNA pool.

kle4 said:

Battlebus said:

Nigelb said:

Given the US is now ending military aid to Ukraine anyway - and seems to be refusing requests for future arms sales to Ukraine - this gives every incentive for Russia to continue its invasion.

Trump says US will 'pass' on Ukraine peace talks if no progress soon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x5xn1g92o

According to ISW, Russia/Putin have not changed their stance since 2022. They may say different things to different parties but the underlying thrust is to continue until Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity is removed. No different from how they have behaved over centuries to other ethnic groups to which they have taken a dislike.

Without American support to Ukraine presumably Russia feel they can press slowly forward and at the least end up with even more territory than they currently hold. Vance I am sure can realise that, but who the heck knows what Trump thinks about it beyond disliking Ukraine and liking Putin.

GIN1138 said:

How the hell can Piers Morgan be Britains sexiest man???

Stuartinromford said:

MarqueeMark said:

viewcode said:

Taz said:

Hey, all you PB centrists, still some tickets left for this doozy.

https://www.aegpresents.co.uk/event/electoral-dysfunction-live/

This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with people gathered around a table with microphones and a neon sign asking "But what does this all mean"?

It means there are no jobs remaining for pundits.

Probably worth the end of Earth's DNA pool.

"And if the thought of the Earth's DNA pool ending is making you worry, perhaps you would benefit from a session of therapy from our sponsors..."

MarqueeMark said:

GIN1138 said:

How the hell can Piers Morgan be Britains sexiest man???

Only for those looking for omething wonderful mising in their life - and happy to fill that void with a short and torrid affair. WIth Piers Morgan.

College said:

GIN1138 said:

How the hell can Piers Morgan be Britains sexiest man???

Because he combines two things:

1. he's rich and powerful and has the image of saying what he really thinks and not giving a f***, especially when it puts down other men

2. he has poor verbal and emotional skills, dress sense, etc. - he's not at all a braggart like most rich men

Women think he needs them to look after him.

It's the same with Desmond Lynam and Ken Livingstone. It took me a while to understand this. I couldn't understand why on earth any woman would find Lynam in particular attractive - but I thought about it, because many do.

It's a myth that women care a lot about a man's looks - most don't care much.

DM_Andy said:

Jim_Miller said:

On how many "trans" people there are: Here's from the description at Amazon of Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage 'Until just a few years ago, gender dysphoria—severe discomfort in one’s biological sex—was vanishingly rare. It was typically found in less than .01 percent of the population, emerged in early childhood, and afflicted males almost exclusively.

But today whole groups of female friends in colleges, high schools, and even middle schools across the country are coming out as “transgender.” These are girls who had never experienced any discomfort in their biological sex until they heard a coming-out story from a speaker at a school assembly or discovered the internet community of trans “influencers.”'

Be interesting to know whether there are similar trends in the UK.

FWIW, Amazon refused to sell a similar book, written by a man, and refused to let the publisher advertise the Shrier book on its site. (I bought the first as a protest, but haven't gotten around to reading it.)

There's a lot more gay people that are publically out now than there was in the 1950s. I don't think anyone thinks that the incidence of homosexuals in the population has gone up over that time, it's just that it's easier for most people to come out and society is mostly accepting. You can reduce the public number of trans people by making things so unpleasant for them so they have to try to hide in the closet. I just don't want to make anyone miserable so I don't think it's a good idea.

boulay said:

noneoftheabove said:

College said:

GIN1138 said:

How the hell can Piers Morgan be Britains sexiest man???

Because he combines two things:

1. he's rich and powerful and has the image of saying what he really thinks and not giving a f***, especially when it puts down other men

2. he has poor verbal and emotional skills, dress sense, etc. - he's not at all a braggart like most rich men

Women think he needs them to look after him.

It's the same with Desmond Lynam and Ken Livingstone. It took me a while to understand this. I couldn't understand why on earth any woman would find Lynam in particular attractive - but I thought about it, because many do.

It's a myth that women care a lot about a man's looks - most don't care much.

It's a myth that women care a lot about a rich and powerful man's looks may be more accurate.

Melania Trump endorses this message.

College said:

DM_Andy said:

Jim_Miller said:

On how many "trans" people there are: Here's from the description at Amazon of Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage 'Until just a few years ago, gender dysphoria—severe discomfort in one’s biological sex—was vanishingly rare. It was typically found in less than .01 percent of the population, emerged in early childhood, and afflicted males almost exclusively.

But today whole groups of female friends in colleges, high schools, and even middle schools across the country are coming out as “transgender.” These are girls who had never experienced any discomfort in their biological sex until they heard a coming-out story from a speaker at a school assembly or discovered the internet community of trans “influencers.”'

Be interesting to know whether there are similar trends in the UK.

FWIW, Amazon refused to sell a similar book, written by a man, and refused to let the publisher advertise the Shrier book on its site. (I bought the first as a protest, but haven't gotten around to reading it.)

There's a lot more gay people that are publically out now than there was in the 1950s. I don't think anyone thinks that the incidence of homosexuals in the population has gone up over that time, it's just that it's easier for most people to come out and society is mostly accepting. You can reduce the public number of trans people by making things so unpleasant for them so they have to try to hide in the closet. I just don't want to make anyone miserable so I don't think it's a good idea.

Also if there's funding for service provision for 4500 men in a given area who think they're girlies, don't worry - those involved in the medical world and other areas of "service provision" will find 4500 and they will probably push for 6000. Funding, y'know. Target indicator economics.

Of course there are more gays now than there were in the 1950s.

Neither being gay nor being transsexual (except in an extremely small number of cases for the latter) is genetically determined, any more than intelligence levels are. They are environmentally determined.

(But it's always amusing to hear people try to defend the contrary idea while referring to evolutionary adaptation in a totally contorted way, almost as if they were talking about a suicide gene.)

Shrier's book sounds good. I'll read it.

stodge said:

Afternoon all

First poll since the two Leaders' Debates in Canada has the Conservatives leading the Liberals 43-41 BUT it's a Mainstreet Research rolling poll so please provide your own bucket of salt.

Stuartinromford said:

Northern_Al said:

College said:

DM_Andy said:

Jim_Miller said:

On how many "trans" people there are: Here's from the description at Amazon of Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage 'Until just a few years ago, gender dysphoria—severe discomfort in one’s biological sex—was vanishingly rare. It was typically found in less than .01 percent of the population, emerged in early childhood, and afflicted males almost exclusively.

But today whole groups of female friends in colleges, high schools, and even middle schools across the country are coming out as “transgender.” These are girls who had never experienced any discomfort in their biological sex until they heard a coming-out story from a speaker at a school assembly or discovered the internet community of trans “influencers.”'

Be interesting to know whether there are similar trends in the UK.

FWIW, Amazon refused to sell a similar book, written by a man, and refused to let the publisher advertise the Shrier book on its site. (I bought the first as a protest, but haven't gotten around to reading it.)

There's a lot more gay people that are publically out now than there was in the 1950s. I don't think anyone thinks that the incidence of homosexuals in the population has gone up over that time, it's just that it's easier for most people to come out and society is mostly accepting. You can reduce the public number of trans people by making things so unpleasant for them so they have to try to hide in the closet. I just don't want to make anyone miserable so I don't think it's a good idea.

Also if there's funding for service provision for 4500 men in a given area who think they're girlies, don't worry - those involved in the medical world and other areas of "service provision" will find 4500 and they will probably push for 6000. Funding, y'know. Target indicator economics.

Of course there are more gays now than there were in the 1950s.

Neither being gay nor being transsexual (except in an extremely small number of cases for the latter) is genetically determined, any more than intelligence levels are. They are environmentally determined.

(But it's always amusing to hear people try to defend the contrary idea while referring to evolutionary adaptation in a totally contorted way, almost as if they were talking about a suicide gene.)

Shrier's book sounds good. I'll read it.

'girlies'.
Yuk.

Lest we forget, the aim of Putinbots isn't so much to push a line as to spread division and normalise slanging matches.

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Battlebus said:

Nigelb said:

Given the US is now ending military aid to Ukraine anyway - and seems to be refusing requests for future arms sales to Ukraine - this gives every incentive for Russia to continue its invasion.

Trump says US will 'pass' on Ukraine peace talks if no progress soon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x5xn1g92o

According to ISW, Russia/Putin have not changed their stance since 2022. They may say different things to different parties but the underlying thrust is to continue until Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity is removed. No different from how they have behaved over centuries to other ethnic groups to which they have taken a dislike.

Without American support to Ukraine presumably Russia feel they can press slowly forward and at the least end up with even more territory than they currently hold. Vance I am sure can realise that, but who the heck knows what Trump thinks about it beyond disliking Ukraine and liking Putin.

Ukraine don't have US support now but have more support from Germany etc in terms of arms and aid.

Trump is too busy with his trade war with China to really focus on a Russia and Ukraine deal

Trump is too busy with his next short-iron shot into the 15th to focus on anything.

I think that's called the view from the bunker.

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Battlebus said:

Nigelb said:

Given the US is now ending military aid to Ukraine anyway - and seems to be refusing requests for future arms sales to Ukraine - this gives every incentive for Russia to continue its invasion.

Trump says US will 'pass' on Ukraine peace talks if no progress soon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x5xn1g92o

According to ISW, Russia/Putin have not changed their stance since 2022. They may say different things to different parties but the underlying thrust is to continue until Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity is removed. No different from how they have behaved over centuries to other ethnic groups to which they have taken a dislike.

Without American support to Ukraine presumably Russia feel they can press slowly forward and at the least end up with even more territory than they currently hold. Vance I am sure can realise that, but who the heck knows what Trump thinks about it beyond disliking Ukraine and liking Putin.

Ukraine don't have US support now but have more support from Germany etc in terms of arms and aid.

Trump is too busy with his trade war with China to really focus on a Russia and Ukraine deal

Trump is too busy with his next short-iron shot into the 15th to focus on anything.

I think that's called the view from the bunker.

Thanks for explaining it to those of us who are still a bit green.

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Battlebus said:

Nigelb said:

Given the US is now ending military aid to Ukraine anyway - and seems to be refusing requests for future arms sales to Ukraine - this gives every incentive for Russia to continue its invasion.

Trump says US will 'pass' on Ukraine peace talks if no progress soon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x5xn1g92o

According to ISW, Russia/Putin have not changed their stance since 2022. They may say different things to different parties but the underlying thrust is to continue until Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity is removed. No different from how they have behaved over centuries to other ethnic groups to which they have taken a dislike.

Without American support to Ukraine presumably Russia feel they can press slowly forward and at the least end up with even more territory than they currently hold. Vance I am sure can realise that, but who the heck knows what Trump thinks about it beyond disliking Ukraine and liking Putin.

Ukraine don't have US support now but have more support from Germany etc in terms of arms and aid.

Trump is too busy with his trade war with China to really focus on a Russia and Ukraine deal

Trump is too busy with his next short-iron shot into the 15th to focus on anything.

I think that's called the view from the bunker.

Thanks for explaining it to those of us who are still a bit green.

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

London's decade-long millionaire exodus may be as damaging as losing 1.5 million taxpayers
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

Who are you talking about in practice?

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

Who are you talking about in practice?

A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

London's decade-long millionaire exodus may be as damaging as losing 1.5 million taxpayers
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million.
I am a London millionaire.
So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot.
And were they all fleeing?
It seems a small number to me.

This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.

According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.

Gardenwalker said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

London's decade-long millionaire exodus may be as damaging as losing 1.5 million taxpayers
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

Deranged persecution of lucrative tax-payers.
The UK is simply poorer as a result.

AnneJGP said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

If anyone fears finding themselves in that position, get yourself a Radar key, which will give you access to disabled toilet facilities.

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

London's decade-long millionaire exodus may be as damaging as losing 1.5 million taxpayers
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million.
I am a London millionaire.
So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot.
And were they all fleeing?
It seems a small number to me.

This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.

According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.

eek said:

another_richard said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

London's decade-long millionaire exodus may be as damaging as losing 1.5 million taxpayers
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million.
I am a London millionaire.
So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot.
And were they all fleeing?
It seems a small number to me.

This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.

According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.

So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.

So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?

If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.

So why did they leave the UK because I would bet serious money most of them left because they end up paying less tax where they are.

Got to ask what exactly is the Adam Smith Institute aiming to achieve here - lower tax rates for people earning a million plus a year?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

London's decade-long millionaire exodus may be as damaging as losing 1.5 million taxpayers
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

Deranged persecution of lucrative tax-payers.
The UK is simply poorer as a result.

And 3/4 of PBers are literally too stupid to understand this, or how or why it might be bad

They are plenty clever enough to understand it, but a majority of people here have staked out a political position, and then work out their observations about politics back from that. Rather than the other way round. Hence you get blind insistence that UK millionaires must 'pay their way' despite the obvious economic consequences, but blind fury about Trump’s tariffs affecting share prices and global supply chains in the US - which is pretty much the opposing argument.

Barnesian said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

London's decade-long millionaire exodus may be as damaging as losing 1.5 million taxpayers
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million.
I am a London millionaire.
So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot.
And were they all fleeing?
It seems a small number to me.

This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.

According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.

Wow. £393,957!
That sounds an accurate estimate.
I wonder what assumptions the right wing Adam Smith Institute made to generate that number?

Thinking about it - probably a £1 million income with some allowances.

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

Who are you talking about in practice?

A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.

Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.

The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.

But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.

CarlottaVance said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

Who are you talking about in practice?

A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.

Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.

The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.

But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.

The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.

That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.

Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.

DM_Andy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

Who are you talking about in practice?

A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.

Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.

The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.

But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.

The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.

That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.

Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.

When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?

CarlottaVance said:

DM_Andy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Barnesian said:

DM_Andy said:

Chris said:

Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?

Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.

And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.

That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.

A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.

A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.

A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.

"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.

The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.

So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?

Who are you talking about in practice?

A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.

Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.

The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.

But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.

The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.

That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.

Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.

When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?

I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.