People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Fascism is even harder to pin down than “woke”. But you wouldn’t deny it exists and you wouldn’t deny it’s an ideology
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Ok. (I think I said that anyway) Will drones and unmanned surface warships make manned surface warships obsolete? To this I think the answer is yes.
Probably not any time soon. A manned warship has several large advantages over a USV. For a start, USVs are dependant on long range communications. Jam or disrupt the coms and your shiny floating drone is completely ineffective.
Another limitation is the basic nature of the damage control systems you can implement on an unmanned platform, which starts to become a serious problem once the size and cost of them goes beyond the disposable. A well trained crew can save even a very severely damaged ship. Also, warships are often called upon to perform duties beyond simply 'blowing shit up', and again USVs don't really work for most of those roles.
Western doctrine is to regard naval drones as extensions of manned platforms, and I broadly agree with that right now.
Of course that could change if a major power like China decided to go all-in with a fleet of autonomous AI-driven drones. But let's hope nobody is that stupid.
Germany's Helsing is already prototyping precisely that (cheap swarms of long endurance submersibles).
My stint in Tavira comes to a dulcet close. The Algarvian sun sets over the Roman bridge; the swifts stitch the air around the Moorish fort, the gin and tonic clinks by the sleepy riverbank, applauding good work done
Obregado, Portugal
Obregado, obregada, life goes on, la la la la life goes on
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Fascism is even harder to pin down than “woke”. But you wouldn’t deny it exists and you wouldn’t deny it’s an ideology
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
Many people agree on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism as a reasonable attempt at defining fascism. I’ve seen quibbles about some of the 14 points and additions suggested.
But it has held up to informed criticism quite well.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Fascism is even harder to pin down than “woke”. But you wouldn’t deny it exists and you wouldn’t deny it’s an ideology
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
A more reasonable comparison would be social conservatism.
You are being deliberately provocative, of course.
I need to understand this, so I know what will be removed from my society, or unfunded.
Drop kerbs for wheel chair users are about supporting people with Diverse needs to be Included Equitably.
Are they all going to be dug up and replaced with normal kerbs at pedestrian crossings when Danny Kruger is PM?
(The question still stands, btw.)
I am not sure what you want people to tell you.
How about defining the meaning of 'racism'? It means something completely different to every single person, from narrow definitions to vastly stretched all-encompassing ones, yet there is a widespread effort to 'kick it out' of society and make all expressions of it or that might be construed as expressions of it unacceptable and even illegal. Nobody stops to ask how we should define it as if that's a kind of argument for doing nothing about it.
If you were building a successful society in a computer game simulation, would you build one where the population was encouraged to view itself as defined by its 'section' and encouraged in a sense of grievance and underprivilege relative to other groups? Would you build a society that felt guilty enough to borrow money on behalf of its own children to give to other countries whose ancestors its own ancestors were perceived to have wronged? Would you build a society focused on what divides it not what unites it, and produce citizens focused on what compensation they might be entitled to rather than what they could contribute? That refused to control its borders because to do so was perceived as racist? That refused to apply the law equally without favour because that was also perceived as racist? It would be game over pretty quickly.
If building a society in a computer game I would probably reflect on the success criteria.
To answer you on racism, it is as you say a matter of opinion. As a democracy we have public debate like this. And our law around discrimination focuses on acts not attitudes or opinions, which is imo important for how we regulate public life. We also have race as aggravating factors etc, which is a linked but different debate.
I think as a society we have perfectly serviceable and robust definitions in law in the Equality Act 2010, as developed over half a century by a process starting from the Race Relations Act 1965. We have not changed it since 2010 so that seems quite settled. We have:
"The Equality Act 2010 says you must not be discriminated against because of your race (EHRC summary).
elucidated by Section 9:
(1)Race includes— (a)colour; (b)nationality; (c)ethnic or national origins. (2)In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.
That seems clear to me. I'd define racism as an attitude or opinion which could provide justification for such conduct.
Moving on to "oke", I'm looking for a definition of "woke" that I can interrogate and evaluate, sparked by the video you posted. There nobody i have seen commenting, including Kruger himself, seems to have the foggiest idea what he is talking about. Unless he is relying on a trope such as "I'll know it when I see it".
I'll have to have a look at who says "woke" most in Parliament, and to see if it has much meaning.
Thanks for your reply.
You're welcome. The success criteria is survival. A society beset by woke ideas is one heading for decline - the worse the case of woke, the more terminal and imminent the decline.
I am puzzled as to why and how you feel that what you have presented there is a clear definition of racism. Is whiteness a protected characteristic within those guidelines, or is it OK to discriminate against whites - for example in employment?
Personally I would define racism as the belief (the stupid belief in my opinion) in the superiority or inferiority of any given race. But that's my view, and everyone's is different. I could loudly question how anyone can be against something that they can't even agree on a definiton of, but thankfully I have more taste.
I’m not sure trying to define the precisely what “woke” is is helpful.
Fundamentally it’s about a society that is atomised and is acting in a fissiparous manner.
A house that is divided against itself cannot stand
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
Hmmm ... QE and Valiant in Alexandria. Small, admittedly human-guided, drones dropped off warheads that sank them. Only it was so shallow that they just rested on the bottom.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill.
In general I believe in treating everyone with respect.
...I believe that trans people are mentally ill...
The Government disagrees (or at least did in 2002 2004) with you.
"It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else)"
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
Hmmm ... QE and Valiant in Alexandria. Small, admittedly human-guided, drones dropped off warheads that sank them. Only it was so shallow that they just rested on the bottom.
The mine attached to Valiant was not actually in contact with her hull, so the damage was far less severe than to Queen Elizabeth. Despite having a heavy trim forward, her decks were above water, and she remained clear of the harbour bottom. Although nearly immobilised, she was able, although only for a few days, to give the impression of full battle readiness, at least until she could be repaired.
Although badly damaged, with her draught increased to 41.8 feet (12.5m), Queen Elizabeth was not grounded on the harbour bottom,[Note 2][24] her decks were clear and the Italian crews were captured. For this reason, the Royal Navy maintained the illusion of full operational status, to conceal their weakened position in the Mediterranean during the period the two ships were repaired and refloated. Valiant went back into service after many months and Queen Elizabeth after more than a year and a half.
Police at the Britannia hotel, Canary wharf have issued a dispersal order as immigrants inside have claimed they're being caused alarm and distress by the protests.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
...I believe that trans people are mentally ill...
The Government disagrees (or at least did in 2002 2004) with you.
"It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else)"
"Billy is not a real transsexual. There are three major centers for transsexual surgery... I wouldn't be surprised if Billy had applied for sex reassignment at one or all of them and been rejected... Billy hates his own identity you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual."
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Fascism is even harder to pin down than “woke”. But you wouldn’t deny it exists and you wouldn’t deny it’s an ideology
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Fascism is even harder to pin down than “woke”. But you wouldn’t deny it exists and you wouldn’t deny it’s an ideology
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
We don't have to worry about debating them anymore, and wasting our time.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
I love trains.
Did you make it to the Greatest Gathering in Derby?
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill.
In general I believe in treating everyone with respect.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
...I believe that trans people are mentally ill...
The Government disagrees (or at least did in 2002 2004) with you.
"It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else)"
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
I love trains.
Have been at the Eastleigh Light Railway today. Lots of fun on mini steamers.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill.
In general I believe in treating everyone with respect.
Slight cognitive dissonance there.
You don’t respect the mentally ill?
I don’t decide if someone’s mentally ill but congrats on your medical degree specialising in mental illness though.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
I do not believe gay people are mentally ill. Believing ‘you have been born in the wrong body’ or that there are 27 genders is not normal behaviour.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill.
In general I believe in treating everyone with respect.
Slight cognitive dissonance there.
You don’t respect the mentally ill?
I don’t decide if someone’s mentally but congrats on your medical degree specialising in mental illness though.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill.
In general I believe in treating everyone with respect.
Slight cognitive dissonance there.
You don’t respect the mentally ill?
I don’t decide if someone’s mentally but congrats on your medical degree specialising in mental illness though.
Are opinions not allowed anymore on PB?
Isn’t telling people that their opinions are crap allowed anymore on PB? It’s Woke gone mad I tells ye!
...I believe that trans people are mentally ill...
The Government disagrees (or at least did in 2002 2004) with you.
"It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else)"
"Billy is not a real transsexual. There are three major centers for transsexual surgery... I wouldn't be surprised if Billy had applied for sex reassignment at one or all of them and been rejected... Billy hates his own identity you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual."
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill.
In general I believe in treating everyone with respect.
Slight cognitive dissonance there.
You don’t respect the mentally ill?
I don’t decide if someone’s mentally but congrats on your medical degree specialising in mental illness though.
Are opinions not allowed anymore on PB?
Isn’t telling people that their opinions are crap allowed anymore on PB? It’s Woke gone mad I tells ye!
If you like, fair enough but you can simply say ‘I disagree’.
Was the French king who believed he was made of glass mentally ill?
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
I do not believe gay people are mentally ill. Believing ‘you have been born in the wrong body’ or that there are 27 genders is not normal behaviour.
The "not normal' category has also been used against gay people in the past, and even to this day.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Fascism is even harder to pin down than “woke”. But you wouldn’t deny it exists and you wouldn’t deny it’s an ideology
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
I do not believe gay people are mentally ill. Believing ‘you have been born in the wrong body’ or that there are 27 genders is not normal behaviour.
The "not normal' category has also been used against gay people in the past, and even to this day.
Besides, what is normal? Are you normal?
A fair question. Was the French king who believed he was made of glass mentally ill?
I see upthread there was discussion of a news story about two asylum seekers being arrested on charges of sex crimes involving a child. It can be enlightening to try to aggregate reports to see patterns as opposed to cherrypicking cases. I don't know if that's been done for the UK, but there are two interesting US websites doing this.
https://www.whoismakingnews.com/ "aggregates and analyzes news reports published about sexual assaults on children in the United States".
Meanwhile, https://holyfedped.com/ tracks "Which Religious and Political Leaders Commit the Majority of Sex Crimes and Scandals in the U.S.?"
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
I do not believe gay people are mentally ill. Believing ‘you have been born in the wrong body’ or that there are 27 genders is not normal behaviour.
The "not normal' category has also been used against gay people in the past, and even to this day.
Besides, what is normal? Are you normal?
A fair question. Was the French king who believed he was made of glass mentally ill?
I don't know. I don't know about the king in question, but do know that trying to do psychological diagnosis over t'Internet, or on historical figures, is rather silly. Especially when we are not experts in mental illness.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
I do not believe gay people are mentally ill. Believing ‘you have been born in the wrong body’ or that there are 27 genders is not normal behaviour.
A point of information: The ICD-11, published in 2019, ended the classification of gender incongruence as a 'mental illness' and no longer lists it as a 'mental and behavioural disorder'.
This mirrors the same diagnostic progression as homosexuality, which was regarded as a mental illness until 1990, though most civilised people now see it as a personal preference.
So while you are free to express your opinion, modern psychiatry disagrees with you.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
I do not believe gay people are mentally ill. Believing ‘you have been born in the wrong body’ or that there are 27 genders is not normal behaviour.
A point of information: The ICD-11, published in 2019, ended the classification of gender incongruence as a 'mental illness' and no longer lists it as a 'mental and behavioural disorder'.
This mirrors the same diagnostic progression as homosexuality, which was regarded as a mental illness until 1990, though most civilised people now see it as a personal preference.
So while you are free to express your opinion, modern psychiatry disagrees with you.
Well that fine. It’s not as if psychiatry is a science. Science relies on making predictions you can test.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
There are neutral facilities available almost everywhere nowadays, and there was in this workplace so your "test" is moot.
Anyone with a penis should never go into a woman's changing facility, its not difficult. Use neutral ones if you need to, and if that limits you, live with (and campaign against) those limitations and adapt - don't violate the safeguarding of others.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I believe Beth has not had surgery from statements during the case.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I believe that trans people are mentally ill. If behaving as the other sec to their biology helps then that's great as long as it doesn't affect others rights too. I think transmen are women. In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers. Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
Plenty of people also believe gay people are mentally ill.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
I do not believe gay people are mentally ill. Believing ‘you have been born in the wrong body’ or that there are 27 genders is not normal behaviour.
With all due respect, people are allowed to believe what they like.
They are allowed to believe that gay people are mentally ill, they are allowed to believe that Donald Trump is awesome, they are allowed to believe that IQ is literally the only thing that matters, they are allowed to believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism, they are allowed to believe that Radiohead are shit, and they are allowed to believe that the Royal Family are reptilian Aryans.
Categorizing someone as mentally ill based on their beliefs is dumb.
All that matter is how you behave and how you treat other people.
We should stop focusing on beliefs (because people should be allowed to believe what they like), and instead focus on behaviours.
Should pre-op transexuals be allowed in opposite sex changing facilities? No.
Do transexuals face offer terrible abuse for their beliefs and their lifestyle choices, even when they have no impact on other people? Yes. And we need to work hard to stamp that out.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
One simple change that would improve the toilet situation is that many places nowadays have gender-neutral 'disabled' toilets available but keep them locked, even when nobody is using them, and you need to request a key to open them. I would like to see guidance updated to discourage that, they should be unlocked and open to anyone who wishes to use them.
Anyone who wishes to use that cubicle, rather than their own sexes toilets, should be free to do so.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
Totally agree with that. If the Auckland Uni Chemistry department could have unisex toilets in 1998 surely we can all do it in 2025.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
Though some places are trying to make all toilets gender neutral, which has its own problems.
Some gender neutral cubicles on top of, not instead of, single sex facilities is the the right solution. Almost everywhere I know has this now already.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Indeed, but a description of "ideology" (as I quoted earlier from Andrew Doyle aka Titania McGrath) is a lot better than a description of "religion". Calling it an alternative "religion", as is done by Danny Kruger and NatCon USA, is done because they themselves are thinking in terms of a fairly totalitarian politics of one religion, rather than something less sectarian - which would be working out how the values of their religion fit into, and are part of the basis of, a more pluralistic society. That latter was the approach of the piece I linked from Richard Harries, former Bp of Oxford.
I detect (and others here will disagree) a need amongst Kruger's group to create an enemy to justify their own stance, which imo is quite dangerous.
One reasonable comparison if you will is the fuss over "Winterval", the bastardised faux winter festival created in Birmingham in 1997-98. The religious community rolled their eyes and got on with life; the National Secular Society, in contrast, were still using "complaints about Winterval" as a non-existent bogeyman in 2022, following a gormless column from Melanie Philips in 2011.
The "woke" stuff is related, in that imo the complaints are often far more melodramatic than the alleged thing itself.
A similar point could be made about Lee Anderson and his imaginary Migrant Hotel that was nurses on holiday.
But the easiest enemy is one you create yourself out of your imagination.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
There are neutral facilities available almost everywhere nowadays, and there was in this workplace so your "test" is moot.
(Snip)
Then you should have absolutely zero problem in doing so. Go try it.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
Though some places are trying to make all toilets gender neutral, which has its own problems.
Some gender neutral cubicles on top of, not instead of, single sex facilities is the the right solution. Almost everywhere I know has this now already.
I tend to agree - on the practical side, the most important point on trans and toilets is to find a modus vivendi.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Fascism is even harder to pin down than “woke”. But you wouldn’t deny it exists and you wouldn’t deny it’s an ideology
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
...I believe that trans people are mentally ill...
The Government disagrees (or at least did in 2002 2004) with you.
"It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else)"
"Billy is not a real transsexual. There are three major centers for transsexual surgery... I wouldn't be surprised if Billy had applied for sex reassignment at one or all of them and been rejected... Billy hates his own identity you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual."
"Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying."
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
It seems to me it's fairly irrelevant if "gay people are mentally ill" or not in the context of this discussion.
What's relevant is that 50, 40, 30 years ago people had quite odd, brutal, ugly perceptions and prejudices about gay people. In more recent times, we have a generally (though I'm sure admittedly not perfect nor homogenous) more enlightened perspective. Saying the sort of things people might have said about gay people in the 70's or the 80's or whatever now is, quite rightly, fairly likely to go down like a lead balloon in normal public society. I'm sure some people still have these views, but most people now couldn't give a fuck.
In all honesty, I'm not really sure why the trans discussion should ultimately prove to be all that much different, ultimately. we are just at an earlier phase of the discussion to that of gay people.
Even here the discussion seems to be mainly "meh people can do what they want and should be treated respectfully for it bar the slightly tricky edge cases of safeguarding changing rooms".
...I believe that trans people are mentally ill...
The Government disagrees (or at least did in 2002 2004) with you.
"It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else)"
"Billy is not a real transsexual. There are three major centers for transsexual surgery... I wouldn't be surprised if Billy had applied for sex reassignment at one or all of them and been rejected... Billy hates his own identity you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual."
"Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying."
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
While we are at it, can we have toilet cubicles that are big enough for humans? Rather than dwarves made out of pipe cleaners?
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
While we are at it, can we have toilet cubicles that are big enough for humans? Rather than dwarves made out of pipe cleaners?
I’d settle for the same size but we decent loo paper.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
May I enquire why you and others refer to Nurse Peggie as Peggie whilst referring to Dr Upton as Beth?
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Worrying isn't it. i know I cast nastersiums on the Government but they really, really don't know how to run an economy. Not in "oh those lefties are awful" sense, more like "chimps randomly pressing buttons" sense. The left wing used to have brains, an underlying model of the world, and policies they believed would make life better. Now, they're professional politicians who just say nonsense words to get them thru the next day. I'm really annoyed.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
While we are at it, can we have toilet cubicles that are big enough for humans? Rather than dwarves made out of pipe cleaners?
I’d settle for the same size but we decent loo paper.
Let’s go crazy and demand reasonable toilet cubicle sizes *and* decent toilet paper.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
May I enquire why you and others refer to Nurse Peggie as Peggie whilst referring to Dr Upton as Beth?
Good evening, everybody.
Because when speaking its normal to drop titles unless being formal and just use first names.
Their first names respectively are Peggie and Beth, so those are the names to use.
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
One simple change that would improve the toilet situation is that many places nowadays have gender-neutral 'disabled' toilets available but keep them locked, even when nobody is using them, and you need to request a key to open them. I would like to see guidance updated to discourage that, they should be unlocked and open to anyone who wishes to use them.
Anyone who wishes to use that cubicle, rather than their own sexes toilets, should be free to do so.
It is easy to purchase a radar key. Those who need access, buy one.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
May I enquire why you and others refer to Nurse Peggie as Peggie whilst referring to Dr Upton as Beth?
Good evening, everybody.
The preferred usage by the respondents (I.e. Fife NHS and Dr Upton). seemed to be Miss Peggie and a slight snigger because it sounds like Miss Piggy. Despite Peggie being married.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I believe Beth has not had surgery from statements during the case.
Correct. And had, according to evidence, already been complaining about dementia patients misgendering her.
But that's ok, because NHS guidance says that's what you should do:
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
While we are at it, can we have toilet cubicles that are big enough for humans? Rather than dwarves made out of pipe cleaners?
I’d settle for the same size but we decent loo paper.
Let’s go crazy and demand reasonable toilet cubicle sizes *and* decent toilet paper.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
While we are at it, can we have toilet cubicles that are big enough for humans? Rather than dwarves made out of pipe cleaners?
I’d settle for the same size but we decent loo paper.
Let’s go crazy and demand reasonable toilet cubicle sizes *and* decent toilet paper.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Indeed, but a description of "ideology" (as I quoted earlier from Andrew Doyle aka Titania McGrath) is a lot better than a description of "religion". Calling it an alternative "religion", as is done by Danny Kruger and NatCon USA, is done because they themselves are thinking in terms of a fairly totalitarian politics of one religion, rather than something less sectarian - which would be working out how the values of their religion fit into, and are part of the basis of, a more pluralistic society. That latter was the approach of the piece I linked from Richard Harries, former Bp of Oxford.
I detect (and others here will disagree) a need amongst Kruger's group to create an enemy to justify their own stance, which imo is quite dangerous.
One reasonable comparison if you will is the fuss over "Winterval", the bastardised faux winter festival created in Birmingham in 1997-98. The religious community rolled their eyes and got on with life; the National Secular Society, in contrast, were still using "complaints about Winterval" as a non-existent bogeyman in 2022, following a gormless column from Melanie Philips in 2011.
The "woke" stuff is related, in that imo the complaints are often far more melodramatic than the alleged thing itself.
A similar point could be made about Lee Anderson and his imaginary Migrant Hotel that was nurses on holiday.
But the easiest enemy is one you create yourself out of your imagination.
I think you have to be making a pretty determined attempt to be ignorant not to see the impact of 'woke' on our national and cultural life.
To focus on one anecdote where (according to you) political correctness was wrongly implicated in a well-publicised spat, and to ignore every other example of the grinding, self-defeating, divisive costly stupidity of woke is rather disingenuous. It puts me rather in mind of remainers scoffing about 'straight bananas' as a rather crude attempt at distraction whilst the EU busied itself gaining all the accoutrements of a state.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
Though some places are trying to make all toilets gender neutral, which has its own problems.
Some gender neutral cubicles on top of, not instead of, single sex facilities is the the right solution. Almost everywhere I know has this now already.
I tend to agree - on the practical side, the most important point on trans and toilets is to find a modus vivendi.
Ahead of ya
"...This is because rights and responsibilities are matters of politics and so must be resolved in the political sphere via modi vivendi, not matters of law resolvable in the legal sphere via judgements..."
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Worrying isn't it. i know I cast nastersiums on the Government but they really, really don't know how to run an economy. Not in "oh those lefties are awful" sense, more like "chimps randomly pressing buttons" sense. The left wing used to have brains, an underlying model of the world, and policies they believed would make life better. Now, they're professional politicians who just say nonsense words to get them thru the next day. I'm really annoyed.
Makes me very sad. Looks like a lovely pub as well
I know, let’s import seven million people who don’t understand pub culture and often fiercely reject it
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
While we are at it, can we have toilet cubicles that are big enough for humans? Rather than dwarves made out of pipe cleaners?
You should count yourself lucky. In the US, the gaps at the bottom of toilet cubicles are enormous, and anyone who is close to six feet tall can usually look down on the heads of people doing their business.
It's like there's some weird national shortage of wood for toilet cubicle doors, and so they have to make smallest ones possible.
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
May I enquire why you and others refer to Nurse Peggie as Peggie whilst referring to Dr Upton as Beth?
Good evening, everybody.
Because when speaking its normal to drop titles unless being formal and just use first names.
Their first names respectively are Peggie and Beth, so those are the names to use.
Nurse Peggie's first name is Sandie, so I understand.
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Zero customers? Very odd - excellent reviews on google etc, CAMRA awards and so on. That seems like a demand issue - is it the lack of food service that is the issue? Their 7pm closure on a Saturday is a bit eccentric too.
I can't really compare because I'm in Edinburgh and it's absolutely heaving, along with the Highlands.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
May I enquire why you and others refer to Nurse Peggie as Peggie whilst referring to Dr Upton as Beth?
Good evening, everybody.
Because when speaking its normal to drop titles unless being formal and just use first names.
Their first names respectively are Peggie and Beth, so those are the names to use.
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
May I enquire why you and others refer to Nurse Peggie as Peggie whilst referring to Dr Upton as Beth?
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening @AnneJGP. I refer to them as "Nurse Sandie Peggie" and "Dr Beth Upton" in the first instance and "SP" and "DU" thereafter. I used to do the minutes for meetings in work so the conventions are ingrained.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I think it's a hell of a lot easier than it used to be. And it's getting easier all the time.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
Though some places are trying to make all toilets gender neutral, which has its own problems.
Some gender neutral cubicles on top of, not instead of, single sex facilities is the the right solution. Almost everywhere I know has this now already.
There are also problems at many large venues of a completely inadequate quantity of female bathroom facilities.
And there are many solutions: but let's be as ideology free as possible. Let's try and increase the number of family changing rooms, and disabled toilets, and the like. It's not always going to be possible, but nor need it be particularly expensive most of the time.
Let's simply try and minimize the sitiuations where people are going to made uncomfortable by other people's choices. And if people stop being so bothered by them, maybe they can start to - you know - understand them.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
May I enquire why you and others refer to Nurse Peggie as Peggie whilst referring to Dr Upton as Beth?
Good evening, everybody.
Because when speaking its normal to drop titles unless being formal and just use first names.
Their first names respectively are Peggie and Beth, so those are the names to use.
Nurse Peggie's first name is Sandie, so I understand.
Oh. My mistake.
Most media reporting I've seen says Peggie and Beth respectively, maybe that's their preferred names? A bit like how we had Boris and Starmer. I don't know.
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Worrying isn't it. i know I cast nastersiums on the Government but they really, really don't know how to run an economy. Not in "oh those lefties are awful" sense, more like "chimps randomly pressing buttons" sense. The left wing used to have brains, an underlying model of the world, and policies they believed would make life better. Now, they're professional politicians who just say nonsense words to get them thru the next day. I'm really annoyed.
Makes me very sad. Looks like a lovely pub as well
I know, let’s import seven million people who don’t understand pub culture and often fiercely reject it
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. Next question.
*) And do you think it is as simple as you put above? *) What about transmen? *) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive? *) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
1. Yes, except for those who are biologically unclear. 2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less. 3. No. 4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
Which is different to what you wrote earlier, which was: "A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces."
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
Does the law state that people who are living in their new identity are forbidden from using gender-neutral facilities where they are available?
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
Here's a test for you: try living your public life without using male toilets, and only use gender-neutral ones. You'd be quite lucky if it doesnt limit you a fair bit.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
I believe Beth has not had surgery from statements during the case.
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Zero customers? Very odd - excellent reviews on google etc, CAMRA awards and so on. That seems like a demand issue - is it the lack of food service that is the issue? Their 7pm closure on a Saturday is a bit eccentric too.
I can't really compare because I'm in Edinburgh and it's absolutely heaving, along with the Highlands.
It's a tiny village and they are under 15 mins walk from another pub that does food, and is open until 10pm. They've been crowded out.
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Zero customers? Very odd - excellent reviews on google etc, CAMRA awards and so on. That seems like a demand issue - is it the lack of food service that is the issue? Their 7pm closure on a Saturday is a bit eccentric too.
I can't really compare because I'm in Edinburgh and it's absolutely heaving, along with the Highlands.
It's a tiny village and they are under 15 mins walk from another pub that does food, and is open until 10pm. They've been crowded out.
Their hours are absurd and the fact they don’t serve food is likewise going to hinder them
Nonetheless we are losing pub culture and it is such an intrinsic part of Britain and Britishness - it is our classic third space. We need to do all we can to save it
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
Zero customers? Very odd - excellent reviews on google etc, CAMRA awards and so on. That seems like a demand issue - is it the lack of food service that is the issue? Their 7pm closure on a Saturday is a bit eccentric too.
I can't really compare because I'm in Edinburgh and it's absolutely heaving, along with the Highlands.
It's a tiny village and they are under 15 mins walk from another pub that does food, and is open until 10pm. They've been crowded out.
Their hours are absurd and the fact they don’t serve food is likewise going to hinder them
Nonetheless we are losing pub culture and it is such an intrinsic part of Britain and Britishness - it is our classic third space. We need to do all we can to save it
I think this particular one is a bit of a case of 'pray to God sailor, but row for shore.'
That's big. Isn't neutrality in their constitution?
It’s fairly clear that being in NATO is part of being in the European thing.
Austria also has quite a nice arms industry that would love to join in…
I think Ireland will be up next. I think Switzerland is not gong to happen - yet.
Well yes, but Austria becoming neutral was a condition of the Soviets leaving their Austrian occupation zone
And as I’ve pointed out in the past, a condition of the Soviets leaving was never, ever joining up with Germany. Which the EU arguably breaks already….
Comments
Woke is becoming the fascism of the left and it is similarly evil and must be similarly resisted, then destroyed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn923pdq8yzo
This comes after the police today introduced a section 42 order
But it has held up to informed criticism quite well.
*) What about transmen?
*) Do you think the anti-woke and anti-EDI 'world' is positive?
*) What about transwomen who have had the op and been living as women for decades?
I wrote an entire article about this:
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/07/classification/
You are being deliberately provocative, of course.
I'm genuinely curious.
Fundamentally it’s about a society that is atomised and is acting in a fissiparous manner.
A house that is divided against itself cannot stand
In general I believe in treating everyone with respect. EDI has been weaponised in recent times. I have colleagues promoted mainly because they are women. I see a world where it is a problem that boardrooms are dominated by men but no one cares that medicine is increasing dominated by women. No one cares that primary education is mainly by women teachers.
Most people want to do the right thing. Too many bad actors abuse that.
2. Not generally a safeguarding issue, so safeguarding matters come into play less.
3. No.
4. Even having an op doesn't change your real sex, however anyone who has had the op should be treated as the gender they have had the op towards, except potentially for matters such as sport which should remain reserved exclusively to those who really are of that sex.
Anyone who has not had the op definitely should not, no matter how they identify or live, if it violates safeguarding.
20022004) with you."It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else)"
https://web.archive.org/web/20080511211217/http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/transsex/policy.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valiant_(1914)#Mining_at_Alexandria
Although badly damaged, with her draught increased to 41.8 feet (12.5m), Queen Elizabeth was not grounded on the harbour bottom,[Note 2][24] her decks were clear and the Italian crews were captured. For this reason, the Royal Navy maintained the illusion of full operational status, to conceal their weakened position in the Mediterranean during the period the two ships were repaired and refloated. Valiant went back into service after many months and Queen Elizabeth after more than a year and a half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(1913)#Mediterranean_Sea
The order will last for 28 days.
They're going to lose. Badly.
They are wrong, as are you about trans people.
And that's a big issue with all of this: 'trans' people are far from being all the same, or even at the same stage of transition.
It also ignores the fact that the law states that someone has to live in their new identity for two years before they can have the op (a slightly shorter period in Scotland). Hence it makes it next-to impossible for someone to transition if they cannot use public toilets.
Besides, IMV the idea that banning trans people from women's bathrooms is unpoliceable, will cause massive harm to trans people, and will make f-all different to women's safety. And people on here routinely try to make the threats to women the 'other': trans people, or migrants. This is possibly because it allows them to ignore the massive threat to women: men like us. Your colleague at work. That kid's uncle. That cool guy who buys the drinks down the club.
It’s Woke gone mad I tells ye!
Was the French king who believed he was made of glass mentally ill?
Besides, what is normal? Are you normal?
https://www.whoismakingnews.com/ "aggregates and analyzes news reports published about sexual assaults on children in the United States".
Meanwhile, https://holyfedped.com/ tracks "Which Religious and Political Leaders Commit the Majority of Sex Crimes and Scandals in the U.S.?"
To take the Fife case, nurse Peggie was wrongly in my view told she should have gotten changed in a neutral cubicle if she didn't want to change with Beth Upton. The better solution would have been to tell Beth that if she didn't want to use the male toilets, then she could use the neutral one leaving the women's changing facilities free for women like Peggie.
Beth gets somewhere she can change, and women get somewhere they can and nobody loses out then.
As for unpoliceable, it is very policeable, especially in a workplace. If someone enters a changing facility they shouldn't be in, or violates any other form of safeguarding, then people who object should be able to whistleblow and the offending individual can then either get training or disciplinary action as appropriate. Same as any other workplace policing of rules.
This mirrors the same diagnostic progression as homosexuality, which was regarded as a mental illness until 1990, though most civilised people now see it as a personal preference.
So while you are free to express your opinion, modern psychiatry disagrees with you.
As as aside, and I've asked this before: is Beth in the Fife case pre-op, post-op, or going through the process?
Anyone with a penis should never go into a woman's changing facility, its not difficult. Use neutral ones if you need to, and if that limits you, live with (and campaign against) those limitations and adapt - don't violate the safeguarding of others.
They are allowed to believe that gay people are mentally ill, they are allowed to believe that Donald Trump is awesome, they are allowed to believe that IQ is literally the only thing that matters, they are allowed to believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism, they are allowed to believe that Radiohead are shit, and they are allowed to believe that the Royal Family are reptilian Aryans.
Categorizing someone as mentally ill based on their beliefs is dumb.
All that matter is how you behave and how you treat other people.
We should stop focusing on beliefs (because people should be allowed to believe what they like), and instead focus on behaviours.
Should pre-op transexuals be allowed in opposite sex changing facilities? No.
Do transexuals face offer terrible abuse for their beliefs and their lifestyle choices, even when they have no impact on other people? Yes. And we need to work hard to stamp that out.
And let's do what we can - a practical step that doesn't involve ideology! - to make sure there are more gender neutral changing areas, and more gender neutral toilets and the like.
But my suspicion is that trans rights have been hijacked by men with a sexual fetish. And it's quite tricky to draw that distinction.
Anyone who wishes to use that cubicle, rather than their own sexes toilets, should be free to do so.
Some gender neutral cubicles on top of, not instead of, single sex facilities is the the right solution. Almost everywhere I know has this now already.
I detect (and others here will disagree) a need amongst Kruger's group to create an enemy to justify their own stance, which imo is quite dangerous.
One reasonable comparison if you will is the fuss over "Winterval", the bastardised faux winter festival created in Birmingham in 1997-98. The religious community rolled their eyes and got on with life; the National Secular Society, in contrast, were still using "complaints about Winterval" as a non-existent bogeyman in 2022, following a gormless column from Melanie Philips in 2011.
The "woke" stuff is related, in that imo the complaints are often far more melodramatic than the alleged thing itself.
A similar point could be made about Lee Anderson and his imaginary Migrant Hotel that was nurses on holiday.
But the easiest enemy is one you create yourself out of your imagination.
https://x.com/GlobeEyeNews/status/1949425676924428492
The Wonston Arms Pub Landlord
@thewonstonarms
Saturday 05:55pm mid service and we had no customers its Mad ! …..gorgeous sunny evening. Can’t believe this is happening. Consumer behaviours changing on top of Government actions to make hospitality #taxedout wow-we are all amazing folk operating hospitality venues at the mo
https://x.com/thewonstonarms/status/1951897617384014058
What's relevant is that 50, 40, 30 years ago people had quite odd, brutal, ugly perceptions and prejudices about gay people. In more recent times, we have a generally (though I'm sure admittedly not perfect nor homogenous) more enlightened perspective. Saying the sort of things people might have said about gay people in the 70's or the 80's or whatever now is, quite rightly, fairly likely to go down like a lead balloon in normal public society. I'm sure some people still have these views, but most people now couldn't give a fuck.
In all honesty, I'm not really sure why the trans discussion should ultimately prove to be all that much different, ultimately. we are just at an earlier phase of the discussion to that of gay people.
Even here the discussion seems to be mainly "meh people can do what they want and should be treated respectfully for it bar the slightly tricky edge cases of safeguarding changing rooms".
Which seems reasonable.
Good evening, everybody.
Their first names respectively are Peggie and Beth, so those are the names to use.
I have sympathy for them in their financial predicament but I can see why they are struggling to attract customers in the summer holiday season.
But that's ok, because NHS guidance says that's what you should do:
Crazy town.
This is one tiny example that springs to mind:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/nov/27/wellcome-collection-in-london-shuts-racist-sexist-and-ableist-medical-history-gallery
To focus on one anecdote where (according to you) political correctness was wrongly implicated in a well-publicised spat, and to ignore every other example of the grinding, self-defeating, divisive costly stupidity of woke is rather disingenuous. It puts me rather in mind of remainers scoffing about 'straight bananas' as a rather crude attempt at distraction whilst the EU busied itself gaining all the accoutrements of a state.
"...This is because rights and responsibilities are matters of politics and so must be resolved in the political sphere via modi vivendi, not matters of law resolvable in the legal sphere via judgements..."
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/04/27/hyperliberalism/.
I know, let’s import seven million people who don’t understand pub culture and often fiercely reject it
It's like there's some weird national shortage of wood for toilet cubicle doors, and so they have to make smallest ones possible.
Austria also has quite a nice arms industry that would love to join in…
I think Ireland will be up next. I think Switzerland is not gong to happen - yet.
I can't really compare because I'm in Edinburgh and it's absolutely heaving, along with the Highlands.
And there are many solutions: but let's be as ideology free as possible. Let's try and increase the number of family changing rooms, and disabled toilets, and the like. It's not always going to be possible, but nor need it be particularly expensive most of the time.
Let's simply try and minimize the sitiuations where people are going to made uncomfortable by other people's choices. And if people stop being so bothered by them, maybe they can start to - you know - understand them.
Most media reporting I've seen says Peggie and Beth respectively, maybe that's their preferred names? A bit like how we had Boris and Starmer. I don't know.
Perhaps the British people need to legally assemble en masse in numbers that are too great to be arrested
Nonetheless we are losing pub culture and it is such an intrinsic part of Britain and Britishness - it is our classic third space. We need to do all we can to save it