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
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"?
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.
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.
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?
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?
A question was asked about how many people were transgender. I was trying to answer that question.
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.
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?
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?
Absolutely amazing to read from Justine at Mumsnet how businesses blacklisted the forum from advertising at the behest of trans activists, including Ocado who now they have been seen to be on the wrong side of history have issued a grovelling apology and blamed a ‘contractor’
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?
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.
Not a few transgender individuals didn't self declare on the census, as they don't trust government. Not inexplicably.
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 ...
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.)
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?
Aaargh I'm going to have to be careful what I say here, because it verges on professional advice, but.it goes like this:
The statistics were disputed and following a review were downgraded from "official statistics" to "official statistics in development". The final report (latest version 18 Nov 2024)[1] said that
"...At the national level, triangulation with other sources, including data from the Scottish Census, suggests that an estimate of around “1 in 200” triangulates with other sources and is not likely to be materially misleading. While the information on the size and nature of all the potential biases is incomplete, it is hard to draw the same conclusion for some more-detailed breakdowns, including for local areas where the data indicate a higher concentration of people misunderstanding the question..."
So the figure of "around 1 in 200" works at the national level, but not at local level.
It's now April 2025 and stuff has been published since then. My impression is that the 1-in-200-at-the-national-level is correct and is still the current position, but happy to be contradicted by UK Statistical System sources.
This does not constitute professional advice from me and you must DYOR
But how many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers? We should change to the Scottish version of the question.
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
Yet it was under the Tories we had the Boriswave of mass inward migration with little put in place to support it.
Free movement with the EU ended and the Tories introduced an incredibly liberal migration policy which saw far more come than ever came before.
As for illegal migration no one is advocating blowing people up. However the current approach does not work.
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.
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.
And age appropriate and consensual for each of the relevant acts and…
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.
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)
I don't think we can be described as pundits though. There's no payment involved.
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?
Aaargh I'm going to have to be careful what I say here, because it verges on professional advice, but.it goes like this:
The statistics were disputed and following a review were downgraded from "official statistics" to "official statistics in development". The final report (latest version 18 Nov 2024)[1] said that
"...At the national level, triangulation with other sources, including data from the Scottish Census, suggests that an estimate of around “1 in 200” triangulates with other sources and is not likely to be materially misleading. While the information on the size and nature of all the potential biases is incomplete, it is hard to draw the same conclusion for some more-detailed breakdowns, including for local areas where the data indicate a higher concentration of people misunderstanding the question..."
So the figure of "around 1 in 200" works at the national level, but not at local level.
It's now April 2025 and stuff has been published since then. My impression is that the 1-in-200-at-the-national-level is correct and is still the current position, but happy to be contradicted by UK Statistical System sources.
This does not constitute professional advice from me and you must DYOR
But how many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers? We should change to the Scottish version of the question.
...which, if memory serves, *also* came out with the "around 1-in-200" figure (0.4something percent in Scotland?).
But your point is valid. Specifically "How many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers?". I don't know how to capture this, and using alternate sources is a bastard. How do you capture a population that gets surgery/hormones from abroad and doesn't mention it? The GRC number has just been blown off the hinges as the propensity to get one drops, and pressure group sources are skewed.
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.
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?
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?
A question was asked about how many people were transgender. I was trying to answer that question.
How the hell can Piers Morgan be Britains sexiest man???
In the same way Donald Trump can be President of the US, again. How Katy Perry can be an astronaut. How being an influencer is considered a job. How Brooklyn Beckham has a tv cooking spot. How Meghan Markle can sell jam for $14? How TSE gets into decent establishments in his selection of footwear.
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
Yet it was under the Tories we had the Boriswave of mass inward migration with little put in place to support it.
Free movement with the EU ended and the Tories introduced an incredibly liberal migration policy which saw far more come than ever came before.
As for illegal migration no one is advocating blowing people up. However the current approach does not work.
Which Rishi ended to have a much tighter wage requirement for migrants than we have ever had before and no dependents allowed in in most cases.
Absent a deal with France to stop boats crossing while gunboats may be extreme Rupert Lowe has said migrants should be deported on arrival not housed in hotels, a view most Reform voters would back
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.
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
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure Vance does realise that. That's why he wants Trump to walk away.
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.
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..."
"if you are worried about the political bias of news sources on the end of Earth's DNA pool, our sponsor today is Ground News..."
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?
Aaargh I'm going to have to be careful what I say here, because it verges on professional advice, but.it goes like this:
The statistics were disputed and following a review were downgraded from "official statistics" to "official statistics in development". The final report (latest version 18 Nov 2024)[1] said that
"...At the national level, triangulation with other sources, including data from the Scottish Census, suggests that an estimate of around “1 in 200” triangulates with other sources and is not likely to be materially misleading. While the information on the size and nature of all the potential biases is incomplete, it is hard to draw the same conclusion for some more-detailed breakdowns, including for local areas where the data indicate a higher concentration of people misunderstanding the question..."
So the figure of "around 1 in 200" works at the national level, but not at local level.
It's now April 2025 and stuff has been published since then. My impression is that the 1-in-200-at-the-national-level is correct and is still the current position, but happy to be contradicted by UK Statistical System sources.
This does not constitute professional advice from me and you must DYOR
But how many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers? We should change to the Scottish version of the question.
...which, if memory serves, *also* came out with the "around 1-in-200" figure (0.4something percent in Scotland?).
But your point is valid. Specifically "How many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers?". I don't know how to capture this, and using alternate sources is a bastard. How do you capture a population that gets surgery/hormones from abroad and doesn't mention it? The GRC number has just been blown off the hinges as the propensity to get one drops, and pressure group sources are skewed.
I don't think there have ever been reliable figures on the numbers of transgender people. It's pretty clear that historically the numbers exceed Jim's "0.1%", just from reading Victorian newspaper crime reports.
Even today, there's no vaguely reliable count, though clearly the self reporting numbers are much higher than historically. How much of that is simply a less condemnatory society, and how much other factors, is pure speculation.
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.
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?
Aaargh I'm going to have to be careful what I say here, because it verges on professional advice, but.it goes like this:
The statistics were disputed and following a review were downgraded from "official statistics" to "official statistics in development". The final report (latest version 18 Nov 2024)[1] said that
"...At the national level, triangulation with other sources, including data from the Scottish Census, suggests that an estimate of around “1 in 200” triangulates with other sources and is not likely to be materially misleading. While the information on the size and nature of all the potential biases is incomplete, it is hard to draw the same conclusion for some more-detailed breakdowns, including for local areas where the data indicate a higher concentration of people misunderstanding the question..."
So the figure of "around 1 in 200" works at the national level, but not at local level.
It's now April 2025 and stuff has been published since then. My impression is that the 1-in-200-at-the-national-level is correct and is still the current position, but happy to be contradicted by UK Statistical System sources.
This does not constitute professional advice from me and you must DYOR
But how many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers? We should change to the Scottish version of the question.
...which, if memory serves, *also* came out with the "around 1-in-200" figure (0.4something percent in Scotland?).
But your point is valid. Specifically "How many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers?". I don't know how to capture this, and using alternate sources is a bastard. How do you capture a population that gets surgery/hormones from abroad and doesn't mention it? The GRC number has just been blown off the hinges as the propensity to get one drops, and pressure group sources are skewed.
I don't think there have ever been reliable figures on the numbers of transgender people. It's pretty clear that historically the numbers exceed Jim's "0.1%", just from reading Victorian newspaper crime reports.
Even today, there's no vaguely reliable count, though clearly the self reporting numbers are much higher than historically. How much of that is simply a less condemnatory society, and how much other factors, is pure speculation.
In such circumstances I believe the standard pb approach is to get Leon to deem the answer and repeat it as loudly and often as possible.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
What do you want to happen to those 4,500 people? We're talking about real people with real feelings.
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.
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.
Hard to paddle a dinghy across the Atlantic, though.
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.
It's sounds as though it will confirm your prejudices.
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.)
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?
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?
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.
Poilievre did quite well in the debate coming across as less “ attack dog”. The problem for them is their votes are not efficient .
“Indeed, in the 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 seats - 47% of the total available - with just 32.6% of the vote. The Conservatives received 33.7% of the vote but only won 119 seats, just 35% of the total.”
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.
At what point does Ukraine take the gloves off ? Presumably when the aid funding approved under Biden runs out (ie pretty soon).
What HUR can do to Russia versus what HUR will do to Russia has largely been a matter of not upsetting Washington. This dates back to the Obama era. Sever the U.S.-Ukrainian partnership, and HUR becomes uncorked. I’m fairly sure Trump hasn’t thought this through, but he’ll find out. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1913421008800825620
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.
You're right, of course. I think I'll go for a walk.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or then again it might be as damaging as losing London's smog. Or its pre-Bazalgette Big Stink or the line of public brothels along the South Bank in medieval times
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.
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.
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.
You're right, of course. I think I'll go for a walk.
It’s nice out, here, but a bit windy.
Breaking waves on the Thames are bracing to row through. Wind against tide… Just been out - there was a moment when we went *though* a wave.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
And the alternative is? So how should we approach the issue of people who may have material riches but lack the morals to pay their fair dues for living here?
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.
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.
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.
And the alternative is? So how should we approach the issue of people who may have material riches but lack the morals to pay their fair dues for living here?
What fucking ridiculous bollocks. No one is morally obliged to pay taxes anywhere if they want to move elsewhere. This moronic attitude will pauperise us all. London is the economic engine of the UK
Maybe other things on top of taxes aren’t helping. Street crime. Demographic changes. London has been racially transformed in 20-30 years. Perhaps the rich don’t like it. Should they be forced to like it?
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.
How tall is she? That's one of the biggest give aways.
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.
The ones fleeing will not be people with just over a million due to their house
They will - by definition - be the mobile super rich who can afford to move easily
And with each one departing they take all their business with them. The restaurants they frequent, the gardeners and cooks they employ, the art and furniture they buy, the stuff that makes a city rich and desirable in itself
This morning it occurred to me that London may be close to a tipping point. Where the demographic changes allied with the heavy taxes and street crime and general decay make the whole place collapse
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.
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.
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.
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.
How tall is she? That's one of the biggest give aways.
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.
What is your IQ. 3? Many of them won’t have salaried jobs you stupid frigging twit
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.
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.
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?
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?
Perhaps they don’t want the UK to go bankrupt by chasing away the top 1% who pay something like 30% of all tax?
“As of the 2024–25 tax year, the top 1% of income taxpayers in the UK are projected to pay approximately 28.2% of all income tax revenues, despite earning about 13.3% of total pre-tax income”
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.
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.
Maybe. I suspect at least half of them literally don’t understand it
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?
Perhaps they don’t want the UK to go bankrupt by chasing away the top 1% who pay something like 30% of all tax?
“As of the 2024–25 tax year, the top 1% of income taxpayers in the UK are projected to pay approximately 28.2% of all income tax revenues, despite earning about 13.3% of total pre-tax income”
28.2% of all income tax does not remotely mean 30% of all tax.
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.
Yeah, a million income. Not the sort of taxpayers you want to lose.
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.
What is your IQ. 3? Many of them won’t have salaried jobs you stupid frigging twit
So you're accepting that the number of high paying jobs in London has increased.
And what you're getting upset about is the possibility that the number of foreign oligarchs in London has decreased.
Which might or might not have either advantages and disadvantages.
Overall though London's oligarch strategy is a matter for Westminster and City Hall.
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.
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.
Yes because you’re completely unbiased and objective in all your opinions
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?
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.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
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.
I don’t know any billionaires. And I think the UK under-taxes wealth.
But I just think it’s stupid to drive out lucrative foreigners. Britain’s non-dom regime struck me as reasonably civilized, protecting wealth built up elsewhere from UK taxes. Likely it was open to abuse, and it was grotesque to have a serving Chancellor (and then PM)’s wife registered as non-dom, but it seems to me that the attack on non-doms is primarily driven by envy.
And now everyone’s poorer, including non-doms for whom London really is a convivial homebase.
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.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
Comments
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
Probably worth the end of Earth's DNA pool.
...or, come to think of it, posting to PB.
Damn
(punches self in face)
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.)
Free movement with the EU ended and the Tories introduced an incredibly liberal migration policy which saw far more come than ever came before.
As for illegal migration no one is advocating blowing people up. However the current approach does not work.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/portugal-no-longer-safe-haven-134412781.html
Zak Crawley left the ball.
Twice.
Then I saw something very common.
Crawley played a dumbarse shot and was caught behind.
If Tom Haines doesn't open for England in the next Test, the police should be asking what kompromat Crawley has on the selectors.
Really? How did I miss that memo?
Damn
(punches self in face)
But your point is valid. Specifically "How many of these one in two hundred are trans (whether pre or post op), and how many are "I feel kinda, you know, non-binary, yah?" teenagers?". I don't know how to capture this, and using alternate sources is a bastard. How do you capture a population that gets surgery/hormones from abroad and doesn't mention it? The GRC number has just been blown off the hinges as the propensity to get one drops, and pressure group sources are skewed.
How Katy Perry can be an astronaut.
How being an influencer is considered a job.
How Brooklyn Beckham has a tv cooking spot.
How Meghan Markle can sell jam for $14?
How TSE gets into decent establishments in his selection of footwear.
The world’s turned upside down.
Absent a deal with France to stop boats crossing while gunboats may be extreme Rupert Lowe has said migrants should be deported on arrival not housed in hotels, a view most Reform voters would back
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2002583/reform-UK-rupert-lowe-migrant-crossing
Trump is too busy with his trade war with China to really focus on a Russia and Ukraine deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65485908
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 pretty clear that historically the numbers exceed Jim's "0.1%", just from reading Victorian newspaper crime reports.
Even today, there's no vaguely reliable count, though clearly the self reporting numbers are much higher than historically. How much of that is simply a less condemnatory society, and how much other factors, is pure speculation.
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.
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.
Yuk.
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.
“Indeed, in the 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 seats - 47% of the total available - with just 32.6% of the vote. The Conservatives received 33.7% of the vote but only won 119 seats, just 35% of the total.”
Presumably when the aid funding approved under Biden runs out (ie pretty soon).
What HUR can do to Russia versus what HUR will do to Russia has largely been a matter of not upsetting Washington. This dates back to the Obama era. Sever the U.S.-Ukrainian partnership, and HUR becomes uncorked. I’m fairly sure Trump hasn’t thought this through, but he’ll find out.
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1913421008800825620
I think I'll go for a walk.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html
Breaking waves on the Thames are bracing to row through. Wind against tide… Just been out - there was a moment when we went *though* a wave.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe other things on top of taxes aren’t helping. Street crime. Demographic changes. London has been racially transformed in 20-30 years. Perhaps the rich don’t like it. Should they be forced to like it?
They will - by definition - be the mobile super rich who can afford to move easily
And with each one departing they take all their business with them. The restaurants they frequent, the gardeners and cooks they employ, the art and furniture they buy, the stuff that makes a city rich and desirable in itself
This morning it occurred to me that London may be close to a tipping point. Where the demographic changes allied with the heavy taxes and street crime and general decay make the whole place collapse
And then we are truly fucked
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2025_Canadian_federal_election#National_polls
The UK is simply poorer as a result.
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.
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.
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?
Still not at top speeds but Ferrari/Verstappen may be there. McLaren likewise, of course.
“As of the 2024–25 tax year, the top 1% of income taxpayers in the UK are projected to pay approximately 28.2% of all income tax revenues, despite earning about 13.3% of total pre-tax income”
And what you're getting upset about is the possibility that the number of foreign oligarchs in London has decreased.
Which might or might not have either advantages and disadvantages.
Overall though London's oligarch strategy is a matter for Westminster and City Hall.
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 I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
And I think the UK under-taxes wealth.
But I just think it’s stupid to drive out lucrative foreigners. Britain’s non-dom regime struck me as reasonably civilized, protecting wealth built up elsewhere from UK taxes. Likely it was open to abuse, and it was grotesque to have a serving Chancellor (and then PM)’s wife registered as non-dom, but it seems to me that the attack on non-doms is primarily driven by envy.
And now everyone’s poorer, including non-doms for whom London really is a convivial homebase.