Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
I didn't flag it, but I think you're being rude to Cyclefree who hasn't engaged in any back-and-forth discussion so you can't pretend the lack of response to you "speaks for itself" when she hasn't responded to anyone and has simply shared her thoughts, which is eminently reasonable.
As for Lia, I have no idea what you're talking about, but from a quick Google search all I can see is articles from fellow-athletes complaining about seeing his/her/their penis in a female-only changing room.
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
It is not "innocuous" to be displaying a penis in a woman's changing room and that you think it is shows how far gone you are and speaks volumes about you, not Cyclefree.
“Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports)...”
Cyclefree escalated from actions that were permissible, even if you disagree with them, to apparently baseless accusations of actions that would be a gross indecency offense pretty much anywhere.
She could have walked it back very easily & still made her point, but chose not to.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
How about the line is drawn with sex?
If you have, either now or have ever had, a penis then do not enter a woman's-only space.
Clean and simple.
There is a perfectly reasonable alternative for trans people of change somewhere else, eg gender-neutral facilities and stay out of single-sex facilities.
And how could that possibly be policed?
In 99.9% it would be no issue, otherwise if someone calls the rozzers to say there is a hairy arsed person in a frock in the Ladies , they can shine their torch on the tackle and see if a crime has been committed, simple.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
How about the line is drawn with sex?
If you have, either now or have ever had, a penis then do not enter a woman's-only space.
Clean and simple.
There is a perfectly reasonable alternative for trans people of change somewhere else, eg gender-neutral facilities and stay out of single-sex facilities.
And how could that possibly be policed?
In 99.9% it would be no issue, otherwise if someone calls the rozzers to say there is a hairy arsed person in a frock in the Ladies , they can shine their torch on the tackle and see if a crime has been committed, simple.
You do have your own unique linguistic way of cutting through the bollocks of the situation.
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition. So you are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man. There is evidence that suggests trans women are more likely to be violent sex offenders than men - hardly surprising since the mantra that TWAW allows sexual predators to access women in vulnerable situations simply by saying they are women.
Of course, most trans women are not a threat, just as most men are not a threat. But we cannot ignore the fact that allowing biological males into women-only spaces compromises women's safety.
A line that simply says if you have, or have ever had, a penis you are not allowed in women's spaces would not put any cis women on the wrong side and would be a lot safer for women than allowing trans women in.
Ahem:
"18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" is I think a reference to the percentage of trans women prisoners who are in for assault. What you need is this:
"Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
And I'm pretty sure that's not 18 times bigger than "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a man". Because if it was there would be tens of thousands of trans women in prison for assault.
No. Say there are 1 million men and 10 trans women. If both groups have committed 5 assaults, that's a 50% chance a given trans woman is an assailant vs 0.0005% that a given cis man is. ie trans women are 100,000 times more dangerous. even though "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman" is only 50%
I know what you mean, but that's "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault". The stat that prh47bridge quoted was "18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man", which has to be interpreted as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman is 18 times higher than that of a cis man".
For simplicity's sake, let's assume the only people doing the assaulting are cis men and trans women and that all assaulters are convicted. If a person is assaulted and the probability of that assaulter is 1/19 cis male and 18/19 trans, and the number of cis men in prison for assault is in the thousands, then the number of trans women in prison for assault is in the tens of thousands
In short "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault" is not the same stat as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
The former is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of trans women)
The latter is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of cis men and trans women assaulters)
Different divisors.
Ok - depends if you take "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" to be "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a specific single trans woman than by a specific single man" or "The person you are assaulted by is 18 times more likely to be a trans woman than a man". As the conversation is about the relative risk of trans women, men and women in female spaces, and the relative measures of concern, surely the correct measure is the first - You should be 18 times more scared if you are alone with a trans woman than alone with a man. The fact you are much more likely to be with a man than a trans women (because TW are only ~1% of the population) is true, but not particularly relevant.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition. So you are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man. There is evidence that suggests trans women are more likely to be violent sex offenders than men - hardly surprising since the mantra that TWAW allows sexual predators to access women in vulnerable situations simply by saying they are women.
Of course, most trans women are not a threat, just as most men are not a threat. But we cannot ignore the fact that allowing biological males into women-only spaces compromises women's safety.
A line that simply says if you have, or have ever had, a penis you are not allowed in women's spaces would not put any cis women on the wrong side and would be a lot safer for women than allowing trans women in.
Ahem:
"18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" is I think a reference to the percentage of trans women prisoners who are in for assault. What you need is this:
"Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
And I'm pretty sure that's not 18 times bigger than "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a man". Because if it was there would be tens of thousands of trans women in prison for assault.
No. Say there are 1 million men and 10 trans women. If both groups have committed 5 assaults, that's a 50% chance a given trans woman is an assailant vs 0.0005% that a given cis man is. ie trans women are 100,000 times more dangerous. even though "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman" is only 50%
I know what you mean, but that's "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault". The stat that prh47bridge quoted was "18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man", which has to be interpreted as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman is 18 times higher than that of a cis man".
For simplicity's sake, let's assume the only people doing the assaulting are cis men and trans women and that all assaulters are convicted. If a person is assaulted and the probability of that assaulter is 1/19 cis male and 18/19 trans, and the number of cis men in prison for assault is in the thousands, then the number of trans women in prison for assault is in the tens of thousands
In short "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault" is not the same stat as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
The former is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of trans women)
The latter is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of cis men and trans women assaulters)
Different divisors.
Ok - depends if you take "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" to be "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a specific single trans woman than by a specific single man" or "The person you are assaulted by is 18 times more likely to be a trans woman than a man". As the conversation is about the relative risk of trans women, men and women in female spaces, and the relative measures of concern, surely the correct measure is the first - You should be 18 times more scared if you are alone with a trans woman than alone with a man. The fact you are much more likely to be with a man than a trans women (because TW are only ~1% of the population) is true, but not particularly relevant.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition. So you are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man. There is evidence that suggests trans women are more likely to be violent sex offenders than men - hardly surprising since the mantra that TWAW allows sexual predators to access women in vulnerable situations simply by saying they are women.
Of course, most trans women are not a threat, just as most men are not a threat. But we cannot ignore the fact that allowing biological males into women-only spaces compromises women's safety.
A line that simply says if you have, or have ever had, a penis you are not allowed in women's spaces would not put any cis women on the wrong side and would be a lot safer for women than allowing trans women in.
Ahem:
"18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" is I think a reference to the percentage of trans women prisoners who are in for assault. What you need is this:
"Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
And I'm pretty sure that's not 18 times bigger than "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a man". Because if it was there would be tens of thousands of trans women in prison for assault.
No. Say there are 1 million men and 10 trans women. If both groups have committed 5 assaults, that's a 50% chance a given trans woman is an assailant vs 0.0005% that a given cis man is. ie trans women are 100,000 times more dangerous. even though "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman" is only 50%
I know what you mean, but that's "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault". The stat that prh47bridge quoted was "18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man", which has to be interpreted as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman is 18 times higher than that of a cis man".
For simplicity's sake, let's assume the only people doing the assaulting are cis men and trans women and that all assaulters are convicted. If a person is assaulted and the probability of that assaulter is 1/19 cis male and 18/19 trans, and the number of cis men in prison for assault is in the thousands, then the number of trans women in prison for assault is in the tens of thousands
In short "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault" is not the same stat as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
The former is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of trans women)
The latter is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of cis men and trans women assaulters)
Different divisors.
Ok - depends if you take "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" to be "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a specific single trans woman than by a specific single man" or "The person you are assaulted by is 18 times more likely to be a trans woman than a man". As the conversation is about the relative risk of trans women, men and women in female spaces, and the relative measures of concern, surely the correct measure is the first - You should be 18 times more scared if you are alone with a trans woman than alone with a man. The fact you are much more likely to be with a man than a trans women (because TW are only ~1% of the population) is true, but not particularly relevant.
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
There would need to be a minority government. In which case, why not introduce PR and have a more representative, and necessarily less adversarial, parliament.
Sam Freedman @samfr.bsky.social · 1h The government borrowed £151 billion last financial year. Which was £14.6 billion more than the OBR estimate *last month*.
And yet their forecasts for five years time are being used as the entire basis for public policy decision making.
How on earth do you get a forecast for the year out by 9.6% when you're producing a report with about 85% of the data already known ?!
It indicates the error on the unknown portion was ~ 70ish %.
...or that the remaining 15% was grossly skewed. See, for example, the results from the 2024 Arizona Senate election, which had Kari Lake catching up but not fast enough as later results came in.
I had money on that: I may have mentioned it...
Or, more likely in my opinion, that there have been significant revisals to some of the "known" data.
But the point made by Freedman remains valid. The OBR's estimates continuously prove to be seriously unreliable. Restricting what we can spend now on the basis of where they think we will be in 5 years time is frankly laughable. In fairness to them it was Hunt that came up with this nonsense of debt falling in 5 years time and Reeves who kept it for her own purposes.
I think Freedman misses the point of the OBR and the fiscal rules. I don't think we can expect them to always be met, or the forecasts always to be bang on. They just serve as a control on unsustainable fiscal plans based on current information, and as a signal to the markets that someone is keeping an eye on things.
Whether you think the particular rule is a good one is another debate. Personally, I don't really care about the specifics but do get annoyed when they change all the time, so it's harder to make a consistent comparison between budgets. The other issue is when the assumptions are so obviously a pisstake, like on increasing Fuel Duty - the OBR should stamp that out.
Being nearly 10% out in the year just finished is highly alarming though, especially when their estimate came so late in that year. It suggests that the large tax increases introduced by Reeves have not been sufficient to cover the extra spending, very largely in wages, that she has allowed. That means the assumptions on which the current year estimate are based are seriously optimistic. Unless something meaningful is done to address that (ie yet more tax increases or even deeper cuts or both) we are going to borrow more yet again. It is disappointing that the guardians of our public finances completely missed such a miscalculation by the Treasury and the Chancellor. How can we rely on them going forward?
Did Reeves introduce large tax increases in the year just ended? What were they? Isn't the most significant increase the rise in NI for employers, which has only just been implemented and should raise a fair bit?
You're right. The biggest increases by far were Employers NI which has come in this month.
Followed by the inheritance tax rise on farmers and small businesses
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
There would need to be a minority government. In which case, why not introduce PR and have a more representative, and necessarily less adversarial, parliament.
PR ironically would make little difference but make it even more inconclusive though probably you would get a Labour plus LD plus Green plus SNP government if it could last
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
Thanks @Sean_F . I hadn't seen this poll and have just looked it up. Am I right in that it is:
Lab 23 Con 20 Ref 25 Lib 16
Again if that is the poll my usual comment applies in that I don't think current calculators cater for this type of split. For instance the LDs are not going down a seat if that were the result. They would be up. And my gut says that 254 for Reform looks like nonsense, but I haven't analysed that.
Every seat under FPTP is its own election and most of these seats were Lab/Con marginals in 2024. So this analysis requires a lot of 2024 Con support to switch to Reform in those seats next time and even more Labour support to switch to Lib Dems and other parties so Reform rather than Labour take the seat on a low vote share. Possible but not a given IMO.
The switching Labour support could/would also be to Reform, but even so I agree with you 254 is a big number.
Yes there is some switching from Labour to Reform but not enough on its own to account for the assumed large seat loss. It also requires Con to Reform and Labour to Lib Dem/Greens in the same seats.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition. So you are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man. There is evidence that suggests trans women are more likely to be violent sex offenders than men - hardly surprising since the mantra that TWAW allows sexual predators to access women in vulnerable situations simply by saying they are women.
Of course, most trans women are not a threat, just as most men are not a threat. But we cannot ignore the fact that allowing biological males into women-only spaces compromises women's safety.
A line that simply says if you have, or have ever had, a penis you are not allowed in women's spaces would not put any cis women on the wrong side and would be a lot safer for women than allowing trans women in.
Ahem:
"18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" is I think a reference to the percentage of trans women prisoners who are in for assault. What you need is this:
"Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
And I'm pretty sure that's not 18 times bigger than "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a man". Because if it was there would be tens of thousands of trans women in prison for assault.
My experience of Trans folk both male and female is that they are rather short tempered. How much of this is due to their pre-existing state and how much due to taking large doses of hormones, I am not sure.
Reading 100,000 posts on here about the niceties, logistics, legalities and established customs of trans people using, what the lower middle class refer to as, "loos" has made me quite short tempered.
Sam Freedman @samfr.bsky.social · 1h The government borrowed £151 billion last financial year. Which was £14.6 billion more than the OBR estimate *last month*.
And yet their forecasts for five years time are being used as the entire basis for public policy decision making.
How on earth do you get a forecast for the year out by 9.6% when you're producing a report with about 85% of the data already known ?!
It indicates the error on the unknown portion was ~ 70ish %.
...or that the remaining 15% was grossly skewed. See, for example, the results from the 2024 Arizona Senate election, which had Kari Lake catching up but not fast enough as later results came in.
I had money on that: I may have mentioned it...
Or, more likely in my opinion, that there have been significant revisals to some of the "known" data.
But the point made by Freedman remains valid. The OBR's estimates continuously prove to be seriously unreliable. Restricting what we can spend now on the basis of where they think we will be in 5 years time is frankly laughable. In fairness to them it was Hunt that came up with this nonsense of debt falling in 5 years time and Reeves who kept it for her own purposes.
I think Freedman misses the point of the OBR and the fiscal rules. I don't think we can expect them to always be met, or the forecasts always to be bang on. They just serve as a control on unsustainable fiscal plans based on current information, and as a signal to the markets that someone is keeping an eye on things.
Whether you think the particular rule is a good one is another debate. Personally, I don't really care about the specifics but do get annoyed when they change all the time, so it's harder to make a consistent comparison between budgets. The other issue is when the assumptions are so obviously a pisstake, like on increasing Fuel Duty - the OBR should stamp that out.
Being nearly 10% out in the year just finished is highly alarming though, especially when their estimate came so late in that year. It suggests that the large tax increases introduced by Reeves have not been sufficient to cover the extra spending, very largely in wages, that she has allowed. That means the assumptions on which the current year estimate are based are seriously optimistic. Unless something meaningful is done to address that (ie yet more tax increases or even deeper cuts or both) we are going to borrow more yet again. It is disappointing that the guardians of our public finances completely missed such a miscalculation by the Treasury and the Chancellor. How can we rely on them going forward?
Did Reeves introduce large tax increases in the year just ended? What were they? Isn't the most significant increase the rise in NI for employers, which has only just been implemented and should raise a fair bit?
You're right. The biggest increases by far were Employers NI which has come in this month.
Followed by the inheritance tax rise on farmers and small businesses
That really doesn’t raise that much and is more a tidying up exercise to reduce some blatant tax avoidance by Jeremy Clarkson and others
No Austin/Morris 1100/1300? The best selling car in the UK from 1964 to 1971 (excluding 1967). Precluded because they all rusted to dust?
Triumph Stag? When I was in the Stag owners club they would provide a low loader for the first driver who broke down on club events. Normally overheating.
Ford Fiesta? Weren't most of them made in Valencia and Cologne?
Nissan Leaf? An EV with a 100 mile range. Awesome.
Interesting list. I like "Bentley Blower" - Bill Clinton would appreciate one of those. The later Lotus Elan is missing, as is the Lotus 7. No Land Rover Series 1 or Discovery, or original Range Rover.
As one would expect of the Daily Mail, no attention is applied to reliability !
Haven't they dumped Series 1 Landy in with "Defender" and the David Bache Range Rover in with the later unreliable rubbish?
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Sounds quite a nonsensical generalisation but the whole discussion is about as distateful and full of prejudice as any I've seen on here. Does nobody go to work anymore?
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
IF the election were tomorrow you might have a point.
IF I hadn't missed the boat train from Victoria I might have been the first to conquer Everest.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Sounds quite a nonsensical generalisation but the whole discussion is about as distateful and full of prejudice as any I've seen on here. Does nobody go to work anymore?
I have finished at a landfill site in Pershore for the day and I am sat in a layby near Upton upon Severn pondering why transgender issues barely got a look in for months and now that's all we talk about. Strange.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
Because you are trolling for a response and seem to have a desire to chase @cyclefree away from this site
So you are now trying to chase Phil away from the site? He seems to me to be the only poster to have any actual knowledge of the subject that isn't guided by deep seated prejudice.
GB Energy to be blocked from using slavery-linked solar
Britain's state-owned energy company will not be allowed to use solar panels linked to Chinese slave labour, under changes to government plans. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yrg7pkzpxo
So they won't be using any then.....interesting that at the same time Rachel from accounts is totally comfortable with Shein and their use of slave labour cotton.
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
Don’t you think back to the days when you used to post here telling us what your all-powerful government was and wasn’t going to do, and wonder where it all went wrong for the ‘natural party of government’?
Most of us already know, of course, that moment was when your party chose to throw its lot in with that dishonest charlatan clown, but I’m not convinced you fully understand, despite the many forewarnings you received.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
Because you are trolling for a response and seem to have a desire to chase @cyclefree away from this site
So you are now trying to chase Phil away from the site? He seems to me to be the only poster to have any actual knowledge of the subject that isn't guided by deep seated prejudice.
I would never make such a claim, but even if it was true it would seem to have made me absolutely terrible at communicating my thoughts on the matter in an effective way.
Others have a much more personal stake in this issue than I do, but perhaps that’s why they don’t post on a platform where people are happy to sling around made up statistics about how many assaults trans people commit without thinking about how that looks to anyone reading it.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Sounds quite a nonsensical generalisation but the whole discussion is about as distateful and full of prejudice as any I've seen on here. Does nobody go to work anymore?
I have finished at a landfill site in Pershore for the day and I am sat in a layby near Upton upon Severn pondering why transgender issues barely got a look in for months and now that's all we talk about. Strange.
Not very. As SKS put it in 2022, things that shouldn't be said. If anyone disagreed with the trans lobby they had a very thin time. The SC ruling has made it OK to speak a dissenting view.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Sounds quite a nonsensical generalisation but the whole discussion is about as distateful and full of prejudice as any I've seen on here. Does nobody go to work anymore?
I have finished at a landfill site in Pershore for the day and I am sat in a layby near Upton upon Severn pondering why transgender issues barely got a look in for months and now that's all we talk about. Strange.
Because it affects nobody but like the various race issues in the Labour Party it satisfies a craving to show they're on the side of the angels when for the most part the loudest are the most right wing racists on here
The Dutch Speaker of the House at a dinner with the French Ambassador suggested splitting Belgium in 2
I asked google the meaning of the phrase "You can't split Belgium without a cake"
"The saying "you can't split Belgium without a cake" is a humorous observation about the complex and multifaceted nature of Belgian society and the potential for internal divisions. It suggests that the country's various regional and linguistic identities are intertwined, and any attempt to separate them would be difficult and possibly even require some kind of celebration or ritual, like baking a cake, to mark the occasion"
It has taken me four and a half days to find somewhere in Bishkek Kyrgyzstan that serves a pretty good gin and tonic. The rooftop bar of the Sheraton. And even here it took FORTY BLOODY MINUTES to arrive
JD Vance-If we don’t receive a positive response, we will step back from mediating between Russia and Ukraine. We’ve put forward a clear and fair proposal to both sides.
I'm not sure "giving Russia most of what it wants (for the moment) counts as either clear or fair.
We're left hoping that Putin is so insane and greedy that he thinks he can get more so he rejects the offer. This is suboptimal. Ideally, the European powers, including us, would make it clear that the deal proposed is not acceptable.
Putin has gone from evil, but clever and competent, to evil and delusional, at some point.
In the past four months, Russia has taken vast casualties, in return for going nowhere. The Europeans are ramping up military production, and the oil price has plunged. Yet, for some reason, he thinks he can be awarded political and territorial gains that he has been unable to win on the battlefield.
In negotiations, competence is relative. Against the malevolent, incompetent clown show that is the Trump administration, you can see why he thinks he's in with a decent chance.
You can also see why he really, really doesn't want to negotiate with the Europeans or Ukrainians but just wants Trump to tell them what to do.
I have enjoyed the people who so attacked the Supreme Court (“enemies of the people”) now saying how brilliant the Supreme Court are.
I haven't. They still need to be abolished. I do think they are doing it with an eye to the future though. It's not the behaviour of an organisation that is confident that we are at the start of a thousand year Starmer reich.
We need a final level appeal court - it was the House of Lords but that was replaced for sensible reasons. So what are you proposing we replace the Supreme Court with and how would it be different to the Supreme Court as it currently is given its main purpose
I would revert to the previous system, which, whatever the 'sensible reasons' was vital to the British constitutional system, where parliament is sovereign. Many of the issues we're now experiencing stem from the botched Blairite reforms.
Parliament remains sovereign.
If the Court makes a ruling Parliament dislikes, then Parliament can override that with a new law.
The Court is merely interpreting the Common Law and laws made by Parliament. No more, no less.
The Supreme Court also 'interprets' international law - as an example, their judgement on Rwanda referenced the new concept of norms/precedent in international law, effectively meaning the scheme could not go ahead even if the UK was not a signatory to the ECHR. Parliament can't do anything about that, except abolish the court, which is my suggestion.
Miliband poised to charge homes in South more for electricity
The Energy Secretary has been weighing up whether to push ahead with zonal pricing, which would split the country’s single national power market into different regions
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
How about the line is drawn with sex?
If you have, either now or have ever had, a penis then do not enter a woman's-only space.
Clean and simple.
There is a perfectly reasonable alternative for trans people of change somewhere else, eg gender-neutral facilities and stay out of single-sex facilities.
And how could that possibly be policed?
Same as all laws are policed - 99.999% of it will by self-enforcement, then if there are complaints then those can be investigated afterwards and at workplaces for instance if someone is breaking the rules they can either get training if appropriate, or face disciplinary action upto and including termination of employment if it continues.
Most places which take safeguarding seriously already have procedures in place to handle safeguarding complaints.
And how can a woman prove that she's never had a penis?
Why would she need to?
Women should go freely to the women's toilets, and men should stay out of it, even if they identify as women.
If someone is biologically male and going into the women's toilets, then they ought to be able to face action if a complaint is made and upheld.
Imagine this situation, a cis woman happens to be very butch and someone starts saying that she thinks that woman is trans. The word gets around the pub and she's prevented from using the ladies loo. What happens next?
She says "no, I'm a woman" and if nobody can prove otherwise that's it.
And there should be gender-neutral facilities available too, to be used, like the disabled.
Either way that's better than someone with a penis entering the women's.
Okay, i give up.
Good.
There is no issue for cis women in this ruling, glad you can see that now.
Nor, if there's appropriate third-space universal toilets, is there a problem for trans people.
It may not suit the extremists, but it should be a reasonable compromise for most people.
You know that I don't agree with you, I'm fully prepared to keep poking holes in your position all day but I would prefer to do something more productive with my time.
OK then answer me one final thing please. You, yourself, proposed the other day when advocating that trans people should be able to use single-sex spaces, that any woman who disagrees (like Nurse Peggie in Fife which was being discussed) can "go change somewhere else".
So since you think that "go change somewhere else" is an acceptable answer to give to Peggie, why do you not think "go change somewhere else" is not an acceptable answer to trans people?
Why can't trans individuals get changed in gender-neutral facilities, leaving the single-sex facilities for those of that sex, rather than expecting people like Peggie to get uprooted and go elsewhere instead?
Okay, I'll humour you - Peggie felt that she would be raped by Upton. So the inconvenience to her to use some other changing room where Upton isn't is less than forcing her to use the same changing room and suffer the fear of being raped. The trans people just want to get changed or use the toilet so it's unreasonable to get someone who is doing nothing wrong to do something else.
No, she did not feel (or fear) that she would be raped by Upton. At no point has she, or anyone else, said that. She simply did not want to get changed in front of Upton, nor did she want to see Upton getting changed. Upton wanted to force her to get changed in front of him. He noted two times when she waited outside while he was using the room as transphobic incidents - that wasn't good enough. She had to get changed in front of him. He also refused to leave the room when she needed to get changed as she was experiencing menstrual flooding - a woman in that situation may not want to get changed in front of anyone, male or female.
Upton was clear that, like a lot of trans women, he would not use gender neutral facilities, regarding them as transphobic. And any woman who refused to get changed in front of him was also clearly transphobic.
NHS Fife is required by law to provide single sex changing rooms. The Supreme Court has not changed the law. That is what the law has always said. By allowing Upton to change in the female changing rooms, they were breaking the law. Upton should never have been in the female changing room.
I will also note that Upton said in evidence that he can treat any woman who asks for a female doctor for an intimate examination because he is a biological female. If he acts on that belief, he is committing assault, possibly sexual assault. Furthermore, he said that any woman who objected to him examining her after requesting a female doctor would have that noted on their records as aggression, which could result in them being refused treatment.
He and other medical staff giving evidence maintained that there is no difference between men and women (one did say that only women can get pregnant, but Upton says that isn't true and that you don't need a large gamete and a small gamete to make a baby). If they really believe that, they are a danger to patients. There are many aspects areas where the normal range for readings is very different depending on sex.
Yes, she could have got changed somewhere else, but Upton would have regarded that as transphobic and may have complained about that. Upton's views aside, we know that trans women retain male patterns of offending as I said in response to one of your earlier posts. Allowing trans women into women's spaces makes women less safe. That, on its own, means we shouldn't do it.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition. So you are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man. There is evidence that suggests trans women are more likely to be violent sex offenders than men - hardly surprising since the mantra that TWAW allows sexual predators to access women in vulnerable situations simply by saying they are women.
Of course, most trans women are not a threat, just as most men are not a threat. But we cannot ignore the fact that allowing biological males into women-only spaces compromises women's safety.
A line that simply says if you have, or have ever had, a penis you are not allowed in women's spaces would not put any cis women on the wrong side and would be a lot safer for women than allowing trans women in.
Ahem:
"18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" is I think a reference to the percentage of trans women prisoners who are in for assault. What you need is this:
"Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
And I'm pretty sure that's not 18 times bigger than "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a man". Because if it was there would be tens of thousands of trans women in prison for assault.
No. Say there are 1 million men and 10 trans women. If both groups have committed 5 assaults, that's a 50% chance a given trans woman is an assailant vs 0.0005% that a given cis man is. ie trans women are 100,000 times more dangerous. even though "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman" is only 50%
I know what you mean, but that's "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault". The stat that prh47bridge quoted was "18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man", which has to be interpreted as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman is 18 times higher than that of a cis man".
For simplicity's sake, let's assume the only people doing the assaulting are cis men and trans women and that all assaulters are convicted. If a person is assaulted and the probability of that assaulter is 1/19 cis male and 18/19 trans, and the number of cis men in prison for assault is in the thousands, then the number of trans women in prison for assault is in the tens of thousands
In short "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault" is not the same stat as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
The former is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of trans women)
The latter is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of cis men and trans women assaulters)
Different divisors.
Ok - depends if you take "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" to be "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a specific single trans woman than by a specific single man" or "The person you are assaulted by is 18 times more likely to be a trans woman than a man". As the conversation is about the relative risk of trans women, men and women in female spaces, and the relative measures of concern, surely the correct measure is the first - You should be 18 times more scared if you are alone with a trans woman than alone with a man. The fact you are much more likely to be with a man than a trans women (because TW are only ~1% of the population) is true, but not particularly relevant.
Indeed, but - as you point out - I took it as "The person you are assaulted by is 18 times more likely to be a trans woman than a man". Hence the discussion.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
I didn't flag it, but I think you're being rude to Cyclefree who hasn't engaged in any back-and-forth discussion so you can't pretend the lack of response to you "speaks for itself" when she hasn't responded to anyone and has simply shared her thoughts, which is eminently reasonable.
As for Lia, I have no idea what you're talking about, but from a quick Google search all I can see is articles from fellow-athletes complaining about seeing his/her/their penis in a female-only changing room.
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
It is not "innocuous" to be displaying a penis in a woman's changing room and that you think it is shows how far gone you are and speaks volumes about you, not Cyclefree.
“Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports)...”
Cyclefree escalated from actions that were permissible, even if you disagree with them, to apparently baseless accusations of actions that would be a gross indecency offense pretty much anywhere.
She could have walked it back very easily & still made her point, but chose not to.
There are plenty of reports of Thomas taking out his/her penis in women's changing rooms. That is, indeed, a gross indecency offence regardless of whether it was erect. Many think that team mates commenting that Lia still has a penis and is still attracted to women implies that the girls do indeed have to put up with his/her erections. So I'm not sure what it is you think Cyclefree should walk back.
There are plenty of reports of Thomas changing and the penis in question being visible. There do not appear to be any reports that Thomas either wandered round naked or that the penis was ever seen in an erect state.
Yes, there are reports that specifically say he wandered round naked. There are none that specifically say his penis was erect, but some of those reporting him wandering around naked said that he is still attracted to women, which may indicate that he was indeed erect. Not that it makes any difference as to whether he is guilty of gross indecency.
I have enjoyed the people who so attacked the Supreme Court (“enemies of the people”) now saying how brilliant the Supreme Court are.
I haven't. They still need to be abolished. I do think they are doing it with an eye to the future though. It's not the behaviour of an organisation that is confident that we are at the start of a thousand year Starmer reich.
We need a final level appeal court - it was the House of Lords but that was replaced for sensible reasons. So what are you proposing we replace the Supreme Court with and how would it be different to the Supreme Court as it currently is given its main purpose
I would revert to the previous system, which, whatever the 'sensible reasons' was vital to the British constitutional system, where parliament is sovereign. Many of the issues we're now experiencing stem from the botched Blairite reforms.
Parliament remains sovereign.
If the Court makes a ruling Parliament dislikes, then Parliament can override that with a new law.
The Court is merely interpreting the Common Law and laws made by Parliament. No more, no less.
The Supreme Court also 'interprets' international law - as an example, their judgement on Rwanda referenced the new concept of norms/precedent in international law, effectively meaning the scheme could not go ahead even if the UK was not a signatory to the ECHR. Parliament can't do anything about that, except abolish the court, which is my suggestion.
Isn't the Rwanda issue an example of the sovereignty of Parliament? The Supreme Court ruled that in the case of the five respondents Rwanda was not a safe country. Parliament countered by a law saying it has to be treated as a safe country. Parliament wins.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Contrary to what another poster on this thread posits, this wasn't a study of those in prison. It looked at 324 trans individuals and compared them to a control group of their birth sex. It followed two cohorts. Each cohort was monitored for 14-15 years. They looked at the number of convictions picked up by trans individuals and compared them to the number of convictions picked up by the control groups.
This study is the best available large scale quantitative comparative study of conviction rates by sex and transitioner type.
Miliband poised to charge homes in South more for electricity
The Energy Secretary has been weighing up whether to push ahead with zonal pricing, which would split the country’s single national power market into different regions
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition. So you are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man. There is evidence that suggests trans women are more likely to be violent sex offenders than men - hardly surprising since the mantra that TWAW allows sexual predators to access women in vulnerable situations simply by saying they are women.
Of course, most trans women are not a threat, just as most men are not a threat. But we cannot ignore the fact that allowing biological males into women-only spaces compromises women's safety.
A line that simply says if you have, or have ever had, a penis you are not allowed in women's spaces would not put any cis women on the wrong side and would be a lot safer for women than allowing trans women in.
Ahem:
"18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" is I think a reference to the percentage of trans women prisoners who are in for assault. What you need is this:
"Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
And I'm pretty sure that's not 18 times bigger than "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a man". Because if it was there would be tens of thousands of trans women in prison for assault.
No. Say there are 1 million men and 10 trans women. If both groups have committed 5 assaults, that's a 50% chance a given trans woman is an assailant vs 0.0005% that a given cis man is. ie trans women are 100,000 times more dangerous. even though "Given that a person has been assaulted, what is the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman" is only 50%
I know what you mean, but that's "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault". The stat that prh47bridge quoted was "18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man", which has to be interpreted as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman is 18 times higher than that of a cis man".
For simplicity's sake, let's assume the only people doing the assaulting are cis men and trans women and that all assaulters are convicted. If a person is assaulted and the probability of that assaulter is 1/19 cis male and 18/19 trans, and the number of cis men in prison for assault is in the thousands, then the number of trans women in prison for assault is in the tens of thousands
In short "the probability that a trans woman will do an assault" is not the same stat as "Given that a person has been assaulted, the probability that the assaulter was a trans woman".
The former is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of trans women)
The latter is (number of trans women assaulters)/(number of cis men and trans women assaulters)
Different divisors.
Ok - depends if you take "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a trans woman than by a man" to be "You are 18 times more likely to be physically assaulted by a specific single trans woman than by a specific single man" or "The person you are assaulted by is 18 times more likely to be a trans woman than a man". As the conversation is about the relative risk of trans women, men and women in female spaces, and the relative measures of concern, surely the correct measure is the first - You should be 18 times more scared if you are alone with a trans woman than alone with a man. The fact you are much more likely to be with a man than a trans women (because TW are only ~1% of the population) is true, but not particularly relevant.
Indeed, but - as you point out - I took it as "The person you are assaulted by is 18 times more likely to be a trans woman than a man". Hence the discussion.
My apologies. I failed to notice a typo in my post, which means it is completely wrong! That should have said you are 18 times more likely to be assaulted by a trans woman than a woman. To put it another way, you are as likely to be assaulted by a trans woman as by a man.
Miliband poised to charge homes in South more for electricity
The Energy Secretary has been weighing up whether to push ahead with zonal pricing, which would split the country’s single national power market into different regions
yaba daba doo ours should plummet if honesty prevails, but I will not hold my breath.
Yep, Scotland should be significantly cheaper. I guess they would go for a diluted version though, rather than a price that actually reflects transmission costs.
It's difficult to see any downsides. Regional pricing does two things - it reduces transmission costs by incentivising consumption closer to generation, and stimulates generation YIMBYism.
While England banned onshore wind for 9 years, Scotland ploughed on regardless. Why shouldn't people in Scotland, who have embraced new power generation, not benefit? And given so much English generation is near some of the poorest areas, like Teesside, I'd hope you will get some economic levelling up as a result of this cheap energy.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
How about the line is drawn with sex?
If you have, either now or have ever had, a penis then do not enter a woman's-only space.
Clean and simple.
There is a perfectly reasonable alternative for trans people of change somewhere else, eg gender-neutral facilities and stay out of single-sex facilities.
And how could that possibly be policed?
Same as all laws are policed - 99.999% of it will by self-enforcement, then if there are complaints then those can be investigated afterwards and at workplaces for instance if someone is breaking the rules they can either get training if appropriate, or face disciplinary action upto and including termination of employment if it continues.
Most places which take safeguarding seriously already have procedures in place to handle safeguarding complaints.
And how can a woman prove that she's never had a penis?
Why would she need to?
Women should go freely to the women's toilets, and men should stay out of it, even if they identify as women.
If someone is biologically male and going into the women's toilets, then they ought to be able to face action if a complaint is made and upheld.
Imagine this situation, a cis woman happens to be very butch and someone starts saying that she thinks that woman is trans. The word gets around the pub and she's prevented from using the ladies loo. What happens next?
She says "no, I'm a woman" and if nobody can prove otherwise that's it.
And there should be gender-neutral facilities available too, to be used, like the disabled.
Either way that's better than someone with a penis entering the women's.
Okay, i give up.
Good.
There is no issue for cis women in this ruling, glad you can see that now.
Nor, if there's appropriate third-space universal toilets, is there a problem for trans people.
It may not suit the extremists, but it should be a reasonable compromise for most people.
You know that I don't agree with you, I'm fully prepared to keep poking holes in your position all day but I would prefer to do something more productive with my time.
OK then answer me one final thing please. You, yourself, proposed the other day when advocating that trans people should be able to use single-sex spaces, that any woman who disagrees (like Nurse Peggie in Fife which was being discussed) can "go change somewhere else".
So since you think that "go change somewhere else" is an acceptable answer to give to Peggie, why do you not think "go change somewhere else" is not an acceptable answer to trans people?
Why can't trans individuals get changed in gender-neutral facilities, leaving the single-sex facilities for those of that sex, rather than expecting people like Peggie to get uprooted and go elsewhere instead?
Okay, I'll humour you - Peggie felt that she would be raped by Upton. So the inconvenience to her to use some other changing room where Upton isn't is less than forcing her to use the same changing room and suffer the fear of being raped. The trans people just want to get changed or use the toilet so it's unreasonable to get someone who is doing nothing wrong to do something else.
No, she did not feel (or fear) that she would be raped by Upton. At no point has she, or anyone else, said that. She simply did not want to get changed in front of Upton, nor did she want to see Upton getting changed. Upton wanted to force her to get changed in front of him. He noted two times when she waited outside while he was using the room as transphobic incidents - that wasn't good enough. She had to get changed in front of him. He also refused to leave the room when she needed to get changed as she was experiencing menstrual flooding - a woman in that situation may not want to get changed in front of anyone, male or female.
Upton was clear that, like a lot of trans women, he would not use gender neutral facilities, regarding them as transphobic. And any woman who refused to get changed in front of him was also clearly transphobic.
NHS Fife is required by law to provide single sex changing rooms. The Supreme Court has not changed the law. That is what the law has always said. By allowing Upton to change in the female changing rooms, they were breaking the law. Upton should never have been in the female changing room.
I will also note that Upton said in evidence that he can treat any woman who asks for a female doctor for an intimate examination because he is a biological female. If he acts on that belief, he is committing assault, possibly sexual assault. Furthermore, he said that any woman who objected to him examining her after requesting a female doctor would have that noted on their records as aggression, which could result in them being refused treatment.
He and other medical staff giving evidence maintained that there is no difference between men and women (one did say that only women can get pregnant, but Upton says that isn't true and that you don't need a large gamete and a small gamete to make a baby). If they really believe that, they are a danger to patients. There are many aspects areas where the normal range for readings is very different depending on sex.
Yes, she could have got changed somewhere else, but Upton would have regarded that as transphobic and may have complained about that. Upton's views aside, we know that trans women retain male patterns of offending as I said in response to one of your earlier posts. Allowing trans women into women's spaces makes women less safe. That, on its own, means we shouldn't do it.
In other words he was a total arsehole, happy to intimidate and trample over other people's rights. A good boot up the ( metaphorical not physical to save any woke people fainting ) arse and sent to the gents changing room was what he needed.
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
Don’t you think back to the days when you used to post here telling us what your all-powerful government was and wasn’t going to do, and wonder where it all went wrong for the ‘natural party of government’?
Most of us already know, of course, that moment was when your party chose to throw its lot in with that dishonest charlatan clown, but I’m not convinced you fully understand, despite the many forewarnings you received.
Without Boris Corbyn would have become PM and stopped Brexit
Miliband poised to charge homes in South more for electricity
The Energy Secretary has been weighing up whether to push ahead with zonal pricing, which would split the country’s single national power market into different regions
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
Don’t you think back to the days when you used to post here telling us what your all-powerful government was and wasn’t going to do, and wonder where it all went wrong for the ‘natural party of government’?
Most of us already know, of course, that moment was when your party chose to throw its lot in with that dishonest charlatan clown, but I’m not convinced you fully understand, despite the many forewarnings you received.
Without Boris Corbyn would have become PM and stopped Brexit
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Contrary to what another poster on this thread posits, this wasn't a study of those in prison. It looked at 324 trans individuals and compared them to a control group of their birth sex. It followed two cohorts. Each cohort was monitored for 14-15 years. They looked at the number of convictions picked up by trans individuals and compared them to the number of convictions picked up by the control groups.
This study is the best available large scale quantitative comparative study of conviction rates by sex and transitioner type.
I see this morning's Yougov poll would give 254 seats for Reform, 185 Labour, 75 Conservative, and 71 Lib Dems.
So another poll with a hung parliament and Kemi again holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform
Or the Lib Dems... I can't see the Conservatives agreeing to be the junior partner to Reform, it would be existential.
Anyway the seat models are no longer valid, they're based on 2 (+ small 3rd) party data. It'll take several elections of the current multi-party distribution before they are accurate.
Dimbleby has an R4 programme on Goldsmith for all you Brexit fans.
No, Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP would still be short of a majority.
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
Don’t you think back to the days when you used to post here telling us what your all-powerful government was and wasn’t going to do, and wonder where it all went wrong for the ‘natural party of government’?
Most of us already know, of course, that moment was when your party chose to throw its lot in with that dishonest charlatan clown, but I’m not convinced you fully understand, despite the many forewarnings you received.
Without Boris Corbyn would have become PM and stopped Brexit
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Contrary to what another poster on this thread posits, this wasn't a study of those in prison. It looked at 324 trans individuals and compared them to a control group of their birth sex. It followed two cohorts. Each cohort was monitored for 14-15 years. They looked at the number of convictions picked up by trans individuals and compared them to the number of convictions picked up by the control groups.
This study is the best available large scale quantitative comparative study of conviction rates by sex and transitioner type.
Because @Cyclefree’s profile is private, it appears to be impossible to discover whether she has retracted her apparently false & deeply unpleasant remarks about Lia Thomas.
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Since @Cyclefree has turned up, I would like to know her answer to this.
Her lack of response speaks for itself I guess.
Fwiw, when people talk about bigotry, this is one of the behaviours they’re referring to - the sexualisation of everything that trans people do, no matter how innocuous.
What Lia did was permissible at the time under the rules of their sport. Testimony from the time shows that there was no where else for them to get changed . You can (rightly) argue about whether or not she should have been allowed to compete, or to be in that changing room at all.
Cyclefree went far beyond that mark - contemporaneous accounts simply don’t match her description of events & her depiction of a transwoman in these gross sexualised terms which appear to be completely untrue is not OK.
(edit: re:flags, please do explain why you think my comments are unacceptable.)
That is disgusting. Nobody with a penis should be going into a female-only changing room and even if you did there are ways to get changed without showing your penis to others, such as getting changed in a cubicle or underneath a towel.
But that is what the Supreme Court has just decided, trans men who have had a phalloplasty are women. The perceived threat was always that men could just put on a dress and claim to be a trans woman, now a man could just lie and say they are a trans man. I think that will make women less safe than the previous position.
Interesting that you seem to be impugning that "trans men" who have had surgery are a major threat to women, while "trans women" who are still biologically male, and are numerically a much-greater number of people (since most trans people don't get surgery changing their genitals) are not. How do you square that circle?
And actually the court did not determine that. The court determined that trans women can be women's spaces and it also determined but much less noted that trans men can be excluded from women's spaces too. See this from a commissioner for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.
Hence the need for third spaces such as gender-neutral alternatives to be provided on top of single sex provisions.
Given your argument that trans men make women unsafe, and given you argued the other day "change somewhere else" is an option, presumably excluding both trans males (with surgery) and trans women from women's spaces will make women more safe. While having what you've personally proposed as an alternative of "change somewhere else" available for trans people too.
Leaving everyone with a safe and dignified option. What's not to like?
My position is that neither trans men or trans women are a threat. They are just people trying to live their lives. But I do recognise that most women don't want men in female-only spaces. So the line between men and women has to be drawn somewhere. For me the ideal would be for that to be on legal gender, it's easy to prove. But the EA doesn't allow for that option (I don't like it but reading the EA it's not a wrong decision). So we have a line where it's impossible to prove that you are entitled to be in a female-only space. Birth Certificate or Passport? no good because some men have F and some women have M. Appearance? That's really tricky, as I've mentioned I've got a butch lesbian aunt and I had a female friend at college who grew a better moustache than I could. Any line will have cis women on the wrong side of it.
I'm not saying that the old way was perfect but the new regime is worse for cis women, trans women and trans men.
We know that trans women generally have similar offending patterns to men, not women, even if the individual has undergone hormonal and surgical treatment to transition.
Cite?
It’s entirely plausible of course, but I think a blanket statement like this does need a citation of some sort.
Contrary to what another poster on this thread posits, this wasn't a study of those in prison. It looked at 324 trans individuals and compared them to a control group of their birth sex. It followed two cohorts. Each cohort was monitored for 14-15 years. They looked at the number of convictions picked up by trans individuals and compared them to the number of convictions picked up by the control groups.
This study is the best available large scale quantitative comparative study of conviction rates by sex and transitioner type.
Gender differences Comparisons of female-to-males and male-to-females, although hampered by low statistical power and associated wide confidence intervals, suggested mostly similar risks for adverse outcomes (Tables S1 and S2). However, violence against self (suicidal behaviour) and others ([violent] crime) constituted important exceptions. First, male-to-females had significantly increased risks for suicide attempts compared to both female (aHR 9.3; 95% CI 4.4–19.9) and male (aHR 10.4; 95% CI 4.9–22.1) controls. By contrast, female-to-males had significantly increased risk of suicide attempts only compared to male controls (aHR 6.8; 95% CI 2.1–21.6) but not compared to female controls (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 0.7–4.8). This suggests that male-to-females are at higher risk for suicide attempts after sex reassignment, whereas female-to-males maintain a female pattern of suicide attempts after sex reassignment (Tables S1 and S2).
Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.
Tesla has not been a 'growth' stock for years. It is at the same price that it was in mid-2021, after which it has two price spikes. The latter of which, at the end of last year, was simply because Trump won the election, and not due to any of the company's underlying fundamentals. it did have a massive growth period between 2019 and 2021.
Tesla is a hype stock, and one where people make killings out of short-term price alterations that often occur because Musk lies about something.
Comments
Only Labour plus the LDs plus the SNP plus the Conservatives or the Conservatives plus Reform would have a majority on today's Yougov, assuming only the Tories would consider a deal with Farage.
Conservatives and LDs would not even reach 200 seats so there could not be a repeat of the 2010 Tory and LD coalition government with a majority.
So Kemi would have to choose between making Starmer or Farage PM and the former would be more existential for the Tories as she would lose more current Conservative voters to Reform backing Starmer than to the LDs backing Farage
Lavatory is U.
Haven't they dumped Series 1 Landy in with "Defender" and the David Bache Range Rover in with the later unreliable rubbish?
Toyota Auris. Can't get more British than that!
IF I hadn't missed the boat train from Victoria I might have been the first to conquer Everest.
I wonder whether Pope Francis, being the first ever Jesuit Pope, has helped rehabilitate their popular reputation?
Britain's state-owned energy company will not be allowed to use solar panels linked to Chinese slave labour, under changes to government plans.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yrg7pkzpxo
So they won't be using any then.....interesting that at the same time Rachel from accounts is totally comfortable with Shein and their use of slave labour cotton.
Most of us already know, of course, that moment was when your party chose to throw its lot in with that dishonest charlatan clown, but I’m not convinced you fully understand, despite the many forewarnings you received.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbboOvJ38Og
Others have a much more personal stake in this issue than I do, but perhaps that’s why they don’t post on a platform where people are happy to sling around made up statistics about how many assaults trans people commit without thinking about how that looks to anyone reading it.
"The saying "you can't split Belgium without a cake" is a humorous observation about the complex and multifaceted nature of Belgian society and the potential for internal divisions. It suggests that the country's various regional and linguistic identities are intertwined, and any attempt to separate them would be difficult and possibly even require some kind of celebration or ritual, like baking a cake, to mark the occasion"
I’m renaming the entire country Grrrgystan
You can also see why he really, really doesn't want to negotiate with the Europeans or Ukrainians but just wants Trump to tell them what to do.
The Energy Secretary has been weighing up whether to push ahead with zonal pricing, which would split the country’s single national power market into different regions
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/23/miliband-set-to-back-switch-to-regional-electricity-pricing/
Upton was clear that, like a lot of trans women, he would not use gender neutral facilities, regarding them as transphobic. And any woman who refused to get changed in front of him was also clearly transphobic.
NHS Fife is required by law to provide single sex changing rooms. The Supreme Court has not changed the law. That is what the law has always said. By allowing Upton to change in the female changing rooms, they were breaking the law. Upton should never have been in the female changing room.
I will also note that Upton said in evidence that he can treat any woman who asks for a female doctor for an intimate examination because he is a biological female. If he acts on that belief, he is committing assault, possibly sexual assault. Furthermore, he said that any woman who objected to him examining her after requesting a female doctor would have that noted on their records as aggression, which could result in them being refused treatment.
He and other medical staff giving evidence maintained that there is no difference between men and women (one did say that only women can get pregnant, but Upton says that isn't true and that you don't need a large gamete and a small gamete to make a baby). If they really believe that, they are a danger to patients. There are many aspects areas where the normal range for readings is very different depending on sex.
Yes, she could have got changed somewhere else, but Upton would have regarded that as transphobic and may have complained about that. Upton's views aside, we know that trans women retain male patterns of offending as I said in response to one of your earlier posts. Allowing trans women into women's spaces makes women less safe. That, on its own, means we shouldn't do it.
NEW THREAD
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.001688
Contrary to what another poster on this thread posits, this wasn't a study of those in prison. It looked at 324 trans individuals and compared them to a control group of their birth sex. It followed two cohorts. Each cohort was monitored for 14-15 years. They looked at the number of convictions picked up by trans individuals and compared them to the number of convictions picked up by the control groups.
This study is the best available large scale quantitative comparative study of conviction rates by sex and transitioner type.
It's difficult to see any downsides. Regional pricing does two things - it reduces transmission costs by incentivising consumption closer to generation, and stimulates generation YIMBYism.
While England banned onshore wind for 9 years, Scotland ploughed on regardless. Why shouldn't people in Scotland, who have embraced new power generation, not benefit? And given so much English generation is near some of the poorest areas, like Teesside, I'd hope you will get some economic levelling up as a result of this cheap energy.
https://bsky.app/profile/gelliottmorris.com/post/3lnifsdxoyc2x
Gender differences
Comparisons of female-to-males and male-to-females, although hampered by low statistical power and associated wide confidence intervals, suggested mostly similar risks for adverse outcomes (Tables S1 and S2). However, violence against self (suicidal behaviour) and others ([violent] crime) constituted important exceptions. First, male-to-females had significantly increased risks for suicide attempts compared to both female (aHR 9.3; 95% CI 4.4–19.9) and male (aHR 10.4; 95% CI 4.9–22.1) controls. By contrast, female-to-males had significantly increased risk of suicide attempts only compared to male controls (aHR 6.8; 95% CI 2.1–21.6) but not compared to female controls (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 0.7–4.8). This suggests that male-to-females are at higher risk for suicide attempts after sex reassignment, whereas female-to-males maintain a female pattern of suicide attempts after sex reassignment (Tables S1 and S2).
Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.