Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
This is the worst "solution" to come out of the Trans debate. We have disabled toilets for a reason and I don't think disabled folk should be the ones who end up worst out of this.
The reason is to have larger, fully self-contained facilities with all the supports required. Not to exclude all others.
Those who do not identify as their sex need a self contained facility too.
A decade ago we often already then used disabled facilities, including at John Lewis in Trafford Centre IIRC which dual purposed as baby changing rooms too.
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
Are you really advancing the "don't flatter yourself, terfs, you're not sexy enough to be in any danger" argument?!
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
Are you really advancing the "don't flatter yourself, terfs, you're not sexy enough to be in any danger" argument?!
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
Are you really advancing the "don't flatter yourself, terfs, you're not sexy enough to be in any danger" argument?!
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
"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."
In this town Billy says "everybody tries to tell you what to do" In this town Billy says "everybody says you gotta follow rules." Hey you walk up to those traffic lights, Switch from your left to right You push in that button, and when that button comes alight It tells you "Walk don't walk Talk don't talk" Hey Billy take a walk... with me.
By far the Boomtown rats best song although Don't like Mondays is better known.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
If you're XY, you're a guy
Even post-op?
Yes, biology is immutable. We should have understanding for those who tread that path and choose to chop off their meat and two veg but government policy should deal in biological fact. A specific carve out for those men who have undergone surgery to access some women's spaces could be made but ultimately in 95% of those cases people don't realise they are seeing a biological man because of hormone treatment, surgery and a wish by the individual to "pass" as a woman. In some scenarios such as healthcare or social care if a female patient makes a wish to be served by an actual woman then that should be respected and the sex change XY shouldn't be eligible to participate in the activity.
I don't often comment on this subject now that the argument has been won and sanity has prevailed over the perverted men in dresses invading women's spaces. This probably is the last frontier of that argument where it seems fair to make some exceptions for men who have undergone surgery and made the lifetime commitment to passing as a woman. However, there can be no backsliding and allowing those men who don't make that commitment into those exceptions.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
Polar opposite.
I have absolutely no qualms sharing the mens changing rooms with any other men, whether they be straight or gay or identify as women.
The problem is not men not wanting to share the men's changing facilities.
The issue is how to deal with those men who do not want to use the men's facilities.
Some suggest those men should be in the women's facilities. I think encouraging sex-neutral facilities for those who do not wish to use their actual sexes facilities would be much better than showing your penis in a woman's one.
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
"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."
In this town Billy says "everybody tries to tell you what to do" In this town Billy says "everybody says you gotta follow rules." Hey you walk up to those traffic lights, Switch from your left to right You push in that button, and when that button comes alight It tells you "Walk don't walk Talk don't talk" Hey Billy take a walk... with me.
By far the Boomtown rats best song although Don't like Mondays is better known.
Rat Trap is one of the greatest singles ever made.
ITV national news on the proposed changes to the asylum laws. Very obvious where their editorial sympathies lie. It’s not with the govt. Not even subtle. 😂
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
This.
But we also need to protect the vulnerable from the predatory. And there are more predators around than you would like to think.
I don't want them in the Men's toilets either tbh. I've been sexually assaulted by a man (nothing too bad and he was promptly hauled out by a bouncer), my gay friends have had some awful experiences.
Special predator only toilets? Sponsored by adidas with no aliens allowed.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
people should know if they are a man or a woman and if they don't just pretend they are disabled
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
I agree. The proposals are quite specific and detailed, more so than those so far offered by Tories or Reform. It could be a bit of a game-changer in regard to public opinion. Labour soft on illegal immigration? Not any more.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
This.
But we also need to protect the vulnerable from the predatory. And there are more predators around than you would like to think.
I don't want them in the Men's toilets either tbh. I've been sexually assaulted by a man (nothing too bad and he was promptly hauled out by a bouncer), my gay friends have had some awful experiences.
Special predator only toilets? Sponsored by adidas with no aliens allowed.
Predator: Badlands is surprisingly good for a recent film in the franchise, saw it on Saturday.
I am rather expecting the nurse Peggie case to produce yet another restatement of the law shortly. It really could not be much clearer what it is, what it has been for the last 15 years and what it will remain unless and until the UK Parliament changes it. The enthusiasm with which public money is being thrown at denying this is more than a bit dispiriting.
Sandie Peggy must be a folk singer from the late 1960s.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
I am rather expecting the nurse Peggie case to produce yet another restatement of the law shortly. It really could not be much clearer what it is, what it has been for the last 15 years and what it will remain unless and until the UK Parliament changes it. The enthusiasm with which public money is being thrown at denying this is more than a bit dispiriting.
Sandie Peggy must be a folk singer from the late 1960s.
As opposed to Pegging Sandy. An adult star from the seventies,
ITV national news on the proposed changes to the asylum laws. Very obvious where their editorial sympathies lie. It’s not with the govt. Not even subtle. 😂
ITN have been reassuringly left of centre for a while. They won't like this authoritarian shite.
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
"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."
In this town Billy says "everybody tries to tell you what to do" In this town Billy says "everybody says you gotta follow rules." Hey you walk up to those traffic lights, Switch from your left to right You push in that button, and when that button comes alight It tells you "Walk don't walk Talk don't talk" Hey Billy take a walk... with me.
By far the Boomtown rats best song although Don't like Mondays is better known.
Rat Trap is one of the greatest singles ever made.
No, you are both of course wrong.
"Someone's Looking at You" - the best Rats song.
It has the immortal lines about Sate surveillance of protests:
"They saw me there in the square when I was shooting my mouth off about saving some fish. Now could that be construed as some radical's views or some liberals' wish"
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
It’s time Labour stood up to their rebels. If they can’t get legislation through with their huge majority, they shouldn’t be in government.
I'm going to ignore what the current law says for a second, because this is a politics site and debate is generally around how the law should be, not how it is.
3-4 years ago I felt the wave of pro-trans activism had gone too far. Attacks on gender critical women and the creeping social pressure towards stating your pronouns.
And I've never really understood what gender - as distinct from sex - means on a personal basis. I am, factually, a man, but I don't feel any parts of my personality are defined based on that. Equality between the sexes is the key thing - people can be whoever they want to be from a social perspective.
I now feel like that balance has been restored, largely thanks to gender critical women such as Cyclefree, but also more widely. I was on that side when debating people I knew.
But for me, I was never convinced that toilets were the correct battle ground. Women's toilets have private cubicles. They have a shared space not dissimilar to gender neutral toilets that are legal. Any other actions (public display of nudity etc) can be dealt with as they occur.
Women's prisons, women-only shelters, shared female changing spaces - I agree should be man free. But I think a reasonable compromise for trans people is they can generally use facilities of their chosen gender so long as they use private facilities within said spaces (e.g. toilet cubicle, private changing cubicle).
Now what Labour should do is work out what their position is and update the law accordingly. Not drag their heels in court over the fact the current law doesn't say what they'd like it to.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
I think they might have gone too far, but for the first time in a long, long time I heard a Labour Minister make sense. Far more so than the Rwanda scheme, "just leave the ECHR", smash the gangs, or one-in one-out, which have all made things sound too easy, and been more about tone than substance.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
I'm not really asking whether it's a problem. I'm just wondering what has changed (in this example) due to the SC ruling.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
They just clarified that all the bollox people were spouting about how you could just decide if you were a man or a woman and waltz into any place you wished as it was the law. SC did the right thing and said absolute bollox , you are born a man or a woman and no amount of fiddling about changes that, a fact is a fact and women's spaces are just that. Before that very few people worried about the topic except where some obviously dodgy hairy ne'er do well was prowling about women's areas with ill intentions. Then halfwits and zealots started putting skirts on and thinking they could just go into women's areas and wave their willies about and say it was the law that they claimed to be women rather than fact they were pervies. End result is only baddies will be affected and zealots will witter on about their rights being more important than the majorities rights etc and PB will witter on about it constantly.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
How does Starmer survive that? Having to use opposition votes to get through an act the public love and his back-benches hate will surely rip his last hints of credibility to shreds, and be quickly followed by a leadership challenge he'll lose as he can hardly use opposition votes for that one.
I think this is the winter fuel payments mk2 - he'll march them all up this hill, and march them all down again 12 hrs before the vote when his whips tell him he's going to lose his party's part of the vote come what may.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
John Lewis should hang a new sign – Stuff the Disabled; Anyone's Welcome. It is ironic that trans and terf activists are so ableist. In the old days you could unobtrusively tell men from women by whether they took a newspaper to read in the cubicle but it's all Smartphones now.
At a previous place of work a youngish lad took his phone into the lav and continued to read and scroll with one hand as he did his directional business with the other standing up at a urinal. He was definitely a bloke.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
It’s time Labour stood up to their rebels. If they can’t get legislation through with their huge majority, they shouldn’t be in government.
Yeah, but they need to choose their battles and I would have preferred them to say, look, there's no more money, we need to make cuts.
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
I would never suggest otherwise. The outer edges of the debate are massively toxic on both sides, amplified and fuelled by likes on social media. In my personal life I have met several trans people and what they call themselves etc is their own affair. But we have reached this point because of some bad actors and then the system penalising those who complained (Peggie vs NHS Fife, Darlington nurses vs their employers). In both cases those complaining were the problem, not the man in the single sex space. The Darlington is egregious. A fully intact man, allegedly either trying to impregnate his partner or at least conserve the possibility of using his sperm to do so, wandering round the womens changing room in boxer shorts with holes in, asking women why they weren’t undressing in front of him. And the employers wanted to ‘educate’ the nurses…
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
My Grandfather (who sadly died of cancer in 1975) experienced this first hand 3 times. Once in the ATlantic and twice in the Med. He was also on the Arctic convoys but thankfully didn't end up in the water on those trips.
The attack in the video is a torpedo in keel-breaker mode.
Which is where the torpedo is detonated considerably below the ship, rather than in contact. This cause the ship to whip up and down - often breaking completely half - due to the cyclic collapse and re-expansion of the gas bubble.
Something similar was the mining of HMS Belfast in WWII - it was a bottom mine, so it produced the effect.
There is still a visible repair in parts of the Belfast - I almost said kink but I may be imagining this as it was some time ago I visited. Was out of action for a long time till they drummed up the labour to mend it.
Interesting to see in the video how the vertical whiplash threw deck cargo (in this case, an obviously mocked up demo heap of containers) around. And I wonder about the ankles of anyone standing upright.
Broken legs were common from this effect.
Some were thrown into the deck above, hard enough to *kill*.
Another effect is to smash everything vaguely fragile - with Belfast a lot of cast metal fittings in the fuel system fractured, IIRC.
Apparently, at the start of the war, British and German torpedos would typically miss or bounce off but of course, development cycles were rapid. Bernard alluded to this in Yes, Prime Minister, and so did President Trump when reacting to Russian sabre-rattling.
A large part of the problem was that every Navy was trying to exploit the Mining Effect (as it was known) in their torpedos.
Everyone, independently, hit on the same idea - magnetic exploders. The torpedos would pass beneath the ships, detonating when the magnetic field was highest.
A mix of poor testing, variable local anomalies in the Earths magnetic field etc caused this to turn out to be unreliable - initially.
The Americans then had the bad luck to discover the contact fusing system didn’t work either.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
How does Starmer survive that? Having to use opposition votes to get through an act the public love and his back-benches hate will surely rip his last hints of credibility to shreds, and be quickly followed by a leadership challenge he'll lose as he can hardly use opposition votes for that one.
I think this is the winter fuel payments mk2 - he'll march them all up this hill, and march them all down again 12 hrs before the vote when his whips tell him he's going to lose his party's part of the vote come what may.
I thought it was pretty shoddy that the Tories didn't even offer their vote to pass the welfare reforms (on reasonable terms).
It wouldn't surprise me if they did the same here. Opposition for its own sake.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
John Lewis should hang a new sign – Stuff the Disabled; Anyone's Welcome. It is ironic that trans and terf activists are so ableist. In the old days you could unobtrusively tell men from women by whether they took a newspaper to read in the cubicle but it's all Smartphones now.
At a previous place of work a youngish lad took his phone into the lav and continued to read and scroll with one hand as he did his directional business with the other standing up at a urinal. He was definitely a bloke.
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
I would never suggest otherwise. The outer edges of the debate are massively toxic on both sides, amplified and fuelled by likes on social media. In my personal life I have met several trans people and what they call themselves etc is their own affair. But we have reached this point because of some bad actors and then the system penalising those who complained (Peggie vs NHS Fife, Darlington nurses vs their employers). In both cases those complaining were the problem, not the man in the single sex space. The Darlington is egregious. A fully intact man, allegedly either trying to impregnate his partner or at least conserve the possibility of using his sperm to do so, wandering round the womens changing room in boxer shorts with holes in, asking women why they weren’t undressing in front of him. And the employers wanted to ‘educate’ the nurses…
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
Once you focus on the fact that the object is to protect the vulnerable from the predator women's refuges, prisons, care homes and emergency housing become the priority. Places where the risk is not offence but abuse.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
I'm not really asking whether it's a problem. I'm just wondering what has changed (in this example) due to the SC ruling.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
I do not believe it is an offence, but do believe it is the law. Some things are laws without being offences.
Eg planning regulations require non domestic properties to have single sex facilities or universal ones. Universal ones have different standards, requiring an individual wash basin behind the lock, whereas single sex ones can have communal wash basins.
Facilties can choose single sex or choose universal, AFAIK, but if they make it universal it needs to meet the requirements. If its single sex, well that means women-only in women's facilities.
I'm going to ignore what the current law says for a second, because this is a politics site and debate is generally around how the law should be, not how it is.
3-4 years ago I felt the wave of pro-trans activism had gone too far. Attacks on gender critical women and the creeping social pressure towards stating your pronouns.
And I've never really understood what gender - as distinct from sex - means on a personal basis. I am, factually, a man, but I don't feel any parts of my personality are defined based on that. Equality between the sexes is the key thing - people can be whoever they want to be from a social perspective.
I now feel like that balance has been restored, largely thanks to gender critical women such as Cyclefree, but also more widely. I was on that side when debating people I knew.
But for me, I was never convinced that toilets were the correct battle ground. Women's toilets have private cubicles. They have a shared space not dissimilar to gender neutral toilets that are legal. Any other actions (public display of nudity etc) can be dealt with as they occur.
Women's prisons, women-only shelters, shared female changing spaces - I agree should be man free. But I think a reasonable compromise for trans people is they can generally use facilities of their chosen gender so long as they use private facilities within said spaces (e.g. toilet cubicle, private changing cubicle).
Now what Labour should do is work out what their position is and update the law accordingly. Not drag their heels in court over the fact the current law doesn't say what they'd like it to.
Facilities extend beyond the cubicle alone. Should a woman cleaning herself up forced to be sharing the space with men? The law says no, which is why universal facilities need individual, lockable basins not just loos.
I'm going to ignore what the current law says for a second, because this is a politics site and debate is generally around how the law should be, not how it is.
3-4 years ago I felt the wave of pro-trans activism had gone too far. Attacks on gender critical women and the creeping social pressure towards stating your pronouns.
And I've never really understood what gender - as distinct from sex - means on a personal basis. I am, factually, a man, but I don't feel any parts of my personality are defined based on that. Equality between the sexes is the key thing - people can be whoever they want to be from a social perspective.
I now feel like that balance has been restored, largely thanks to gender critical women such as Cyclefree, but also more widely. I was on that side when debating people I knew.
But for me, I was never convinced that toilets were the correct battle ground. Women's toilets have private cubicles. They have a shared space not dissimilar to gender neutral toilets that are legal. Any other actions (public display of nudity etc) can be dealt with as they occur.
Women's prisons, women-only shelters, shared female changing spaces - I agree should be man free. But I think a reasonable compromise for trans people is they can generally use facilities of their chosen gender so long as they use private facilities within said spaces (e.g. toilet cubicle, private changing cubicle).
Now what Labour should do is work out what their position is and update the law accordingly. Not drag their heels in court over the fact the current law doesn't say what they'd like it to.
Facilities extend beyond the cubicle alone. Should a woman cleaning herself up forced to be sharing the space with men? The law says no, which is why universal facilities need individual, lockable basins not just loos.
Some public toilets have private male/female cubicles and a shared sink area. I think that's fine.
As I said, I'm not debating what the law says. I'm debating what I think it should be.
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
I would never suggest otherwise. The outer edges of the debate are massively toxic on both sides, amplified and fuelled by likes on social media. In my personal life I have met several trans people and what they call themselves etc is their own affair. But we have reached this point because of some bad actors and then the system penalising those who complained (Peggie vs NHS Fife, Darlington nurses vs their employers). In both cases those complaining were the problem, not the man in the single sex space. The Darlington is egregious. A fully intact man, allegedly either trying to impregnate his partner or at least conserve the possibility of using his sperm to do so, wandering round the womens changing room in boxer shorts with holes in, asking women why they weren’t undressing in front of him. And the employers wanted to ‘educate’ the nurses…
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
The reason women’s refuges are required is to protect women from men who have injured or assaulted them. No sane person or organisation should believe that biological men should ever be allowed in such refuges. We need to accept that all men are capable of predatory behaviour, and prevent their behaviour, especially against vulnerable women.
I'm going to ignore what the current law says for a second, because this is a politics site and debate is generally around how the law should be, not how it is.
3-4 years ago I felt the wave of pro-trans activism had gone too far. Attacks on gender critical women and the creeping social pressure towards stating your pronouns.
And I've never really understood what gender - as distinct from sex - means on a personal basis. I am, factually, a man, but I don't feel any parts of my personality are defined based on that. Equality between the sexes is the key thing - people can be whoever they want to be from a social perspective.
I now feel like that balance has been restored, largely thanks to gender critical women such as Cyclefree, but also more widely. I was on that side when debating people I knew.
But for me, I was never convinced that toilets were the correct battle ground. Women's toilets have private cubicles. They have a shared space not dissimilar to gender neutral toilets that are legal. Any other actions (public display of nudity etc) can be dealt with as they occur.
Women's prisons, women-only shelters, shared female changing spaces - I agree should be man free. But I think a reasonable compromise for trans people is they can generally use facilities of their chosen gender so long as they use private facilities within said spaces (e.g. toilet cubicle, private changing cubicle).
Now what Labour should do is work out what their position is and update the law accordingly. Not drag their heels in court over the fact the current law doesn't say what they'd like it to.
Facilities extend beyond the cubicle alone. Should a woman cleaning herself up forced to be sharing the space with men? The law says no, which is why universal facilities need individual, lockable basins not just loos.
Some public toilets have private male/female cubicles and a shared sink area. I think that's fine.
As I said, I'm not debating what the law says. I'm debating what I think it should be.
I have never seen that, and do not think it is fine.
Women should have some privacy from men at the basin too.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
I'm not really asking whether it's a problem. I'm just wondering what has changed (in this example) due to the SC ruling.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
I do not believe it is an offence, but do believe it is the law. Some things are laws without being offences.
Eg planning regulations require non domestic properties to have single sex facilities or universal ones. Universal ones have different standards, requiring an individual wash basin behind the lock, whereas single sex ones can have communal wash basins.
Facilties can choose single sex or choose universal, AFAIK, but if they make it universal it needs to meet the requirements. If its single sex, well that means women-only in women's facilities.
I don't quite follow your 1st para. Isn't breaking the law always by definition an offence of some sort?
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
I would never suggest otherwise. The outer edges of the debate are massively toxic on both sides, amplified and fuelled by likes on social media. In my personal life I have met several trans people and what they call themselves etc is their own affair. But we have reached this point because of some bad actors and then the system penalising those who complained (Peggie vs NHS Fife, Darlington nurses vs their employers). In both cases those complaining were the problem, not the man in the single sex space. The Darlington is egregious. A fully intact man, allegedly either trying to impregnate his partner or at least conserve the possibility of using his sperm to do so, wandering round the womens changing room in boxer shorts with holes in, asking women why they weren’t undressing in front of him. And the employers wanted to ‘educate’ the nurses…
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
The reason women’s refuges are required is to protect women from men who have injured or assaulted them. No sane person or organisation should believe that biological men should ever be allowed in such refuges. We need to accept that all men are capable of predatory behaviour, and prevent their behaviour, especially against vulnerable women.
And yet, consistently the Scottish National Party and the current U.K. government argue differently. As does the fox killer, for it is he.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
How does Starmer survive that? Having to use opposition votes to get through an act the public love and his back-benches hate will surely rip his last hints of credibility to shreds, and be quickly followed by a leadership challenge he'll lose as he can hardly use opposition votes for that one.
I think this is the winter fuel payments mk2 - he'll march them all up this hill, and march them all down again 12 hrs before the vote when his whips tell him he's going to lose his party's part of the vote come what may.
I thought it was pretty shoddy that the Tories didn't even offer their vote to pass the welfare reforms (on reasonable terms).
It wouldn't surprise me if they did the same here. Opposition for its own sake.
I don't think Starmer would have taken them up on it if they had. And his standing, with both party and public, was much higher then.
Back when Starmer was in opposition, I recall posing that amoungst the reasons why I wouldn't ever vote Labour was that whilst Starmer might seem moderate and reasonable, he still had lined up behind him a motley collection of left-wing gouls and demons he wouldn't be able to control. It seems I wasn't wrong.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
I'm not really asking whether it's a problem. I'm just wondering what has changed (in this example) due to the SC ruling.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
I do not believe it is an offence, but do believe it is the law. Some things are laws without being offences.
Eg planning regulations require non domestic properties to have single sex facilities or universal ones. Universal ones have different standards, requiring an individual wash basin behind the lock, whereas single sex ones can have communal wash basins.
Facilties can choose single sex or choose universal, AFAIK, but if they make it universal it needs to meet the requirements. If its single sex, well that means women-only in women's facilities.
I don't quite follow your 1st para. Isn't breaking the law always by definition an offence of some sort?
Not AFAIK, I believe offence is a specific legal term that refers to specific breaches of criminal law.
Civil issues generally aren't 'offences' AFAIK, even where the law is in play.
Some of the comments on here remind me of the bad old days, when homophobia was a thing, and stupid hetero men didn't want gay men in the changing rooms because they felt threatened. In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
"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."
In this town Billy says "everybody tries to tell you what to do" In this town Billy says "everybody says you gotta follow rules." Hey you walk up to those traffic lights, Switch from your left to right You push in that button, and when that button comes alight It tells you "Walk don't walk Talk don't talk" Hey Billy take a walk... with me.
By far the Boomtown rats best song although Don't like Mondays is better known.
Rat Trap is one of the greatest singles ever made.
No, you are both of course wrong.
"Someone's Looking at You" - the best Rats song.
It has the immortal lines about Sate surveillance of protests:
"They saw me there in the square when I was shooting my mouth off about saving some fish. Now could that be construed as some radical's views or some liberals' wish"
My late younger brother used to play that endlessly when we shared a room as teenagers. I was too pretentious and arrogant to take music seriously but I used to secretly listen and marvel. It brings back a lot of memories some happy and some poignant.
Starmer couldn’t get through necessary spending reform. And he’s going to struggle to get this through too. Impossible to imagine he could survive a back bench rebellion of +100
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
I would never suggest otherwise. The outer edges of the debate are massively toxic on both sides, amplified and fuelled by likes on social media. In my personal life I have met several trans people and what they call themselves etc is their own affair. But we have reached this point because of some bad actors and then the system penalising those who complained (Peggie vs NHS Fife, Darlington nurses vs their employers). In both cases those complaining were the problem, not the man in the single sex space. The Darlington is egregious. A fully intact man, allegedly either trying to impregnate his partner or at least conserve the possibility of using his sperm to do so, wandering round the womens changing room in boxer shorts with holes in, asking women why they weren’t undressing in front of him. And the employers wanted to ‘educate’ the nurses…
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
The reason women’s refuges are required is to protect women from men who have injured or assaulted them. No sane person or organisation should believe that biological men should ever be allowed in such refuges. We need to accept that all men are capable of predatory behaviour, and prevent their behaviour, especially against vulnerable women.
All men are not capable of predatory behaviour. But all women have the right to be fearful and that fear needs to be respected and assuaged.
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
I would never suggest otherwise. The outer edges of the debate are massively toxic on both sides, amplified and fuelled by likes on social media. In my personal life I have met several trans people and what they call themselves etc is their own affair. But we have reached this point because of some bad actors and then the system penalising those who complained (Peggie vs NHS Fife, Darlington nurses vs their employers). In both cases those complaining were the problem, not the man in the single sex space. The Darlington is egregious. A fully intact man, allegedly either trying to impregnate his partner or at least conserve the possibility of using his sperm to do so, wandering round the womens changing room in boxer shorts with holes in, asking women why they weren’t undressing in front of him. And the employers wanted to ‘educate’ the nurses…
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
The reason women’s refuges are required is to protect women from men who have injured or assaulted them. No sane person or organisation should believe that biological men should ever be allowed in such refuges. We need to accept that all men are capable of predatory behaviour, and prevent their behaviour, especially against vulnerable women.
And yet, consistently the Scottish National Party and the current U.K. government argue differently. As does the fox killer, for it is he.
Both governments have been infiltrated by Stonewall to their and our detriment.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
I'm not really asking whether it's a problem. I'm just wondering what has changed (in this example) due to the SC ruling.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
I do not believe it is an offence, but do believe it is the law. Some things are laws without being offences.
Eg planning regulations require non domestic properties to have single sex facilities or universal ones. Universal ones have different standards, requiring an individual wash basin behind the lock, whereas single sex ones can have communal wash basins.
Facilties can choose single sex or choose universal, AFAIK, but if they make it universal it needs to meet the requirements. If its single sex, well that means women-only in women's facilities.
I don't quite follow your 1st para. Isn't breaking the law always by definition an offence of some sort?
Not AFAIK, I believe offence is a specific legal term that refers to specific breaches of criminal law.
Civil issues generally aren't 'offences' AFAIK, even where the law is in play.
Really? I thought you had criminal offences vs civil offences. Eg reckless driving vs parking on a double yellow.
With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?
Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.
Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
I would never suggest otherwise. The outer edges of the debate are massively toxic on both sides, amplified and fuelled by likes on social media. In my personal life I have met several trans people and what they call themselves etc is their own affair. But we have reached this point because of some bad actors and then the system penalising those who complained (Peggie vs NHS Fife, Darlington nurses vs their employers). In both cases those complaining were the problem, not the man in the single sex space. The Darlington is egregious. A fully intact man, allegedly either trying to impregnate his partner or at least conserve the possibility of using his sperm to do so, wandering round the womens changing room in boxer shorts with holes in, asking women why they weren’t undressing in front of him. And the employers wanted to ‘educate’ the nurses…
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
The reason women’s refuges are required is to protect women from men who have injured or assaulted them. No sane person or organisation should believe that biological men should ever be allowed in such refuges. We need to accept that all men are capable of predatory behaviour, and prevent their behaviour, especially against vulnerable women.
And yet, consistently the Scottish National Party and the current U.K. government argue differently. As does the fox killer, for it is he.
Both governments have been infiltrated by Stonewall to their and our detriment.
See also the BBC, not that the right thinking folk on PB are willing to accept it.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
John Lewis should hang a new sign – Stuff the Disabled; Anyone's Welcome. It is ironic that trans and terf activists are so ableist. In the old days you could unobtrusively tell men from women by whether they took a newspaper to read in the cubicle but it's all Smartphones now.
At a previous place of work a youngish lad took his phone into the lav and continued to read and scroll with one hand as he did his directional business with the other standing up at a urinal. He was definitely a bloke.
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
I'm not really asking whether it's a problem. I'm just wondering what has changed (in this example) due to the SC ruling.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
I do not believe it is an offence, but do believe it is the law. Some things are laws without being offences.
Eg planning regulations require non domestic properties to have single sex facilities or universal ones. Universal ones have different standards, requiring an individual wash basin behind the lock, whereas single sex ones can have communal wash basins.
Facilties can choose single sex or choose universal, AFAIK, but if they make it universal it needs to meet the requirements. If its single sex, well that means women-only in women's facilities.
I don't quite follow your 1st para. Isn't breaking the law always by definition an offence of some sort?
I suspect like me the minutiae and the politics of public lavatories just washed over you and you lost the will to live.
My only understanding of public conveniences is that the male versions all look like the aftermath of a H block dirty protest. No wonder ladies don't want a c*ck in a frock sharing their space.
Blowing up the rail track on the Warsaw-Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage targeting directly the security of the Polish state and its civilians. This route is also crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will catch the perpetrators, whoever they are. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1990351051992768568
No question this is an act of war. The only question is how Europe responds.
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
Blowing up the rail track on the Warsaw-Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage targeting directly the security of the Polish state and its civilians. This route is also crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will catch the perpetrators, whoever they are. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1990351051992768568
No question this is an act of war. The only question is how Europe responds.
Does responding require us to inconvenience ourselves?
The thing to remember about isolationism, the reason that Trump and MAGA like the idea so much, is that it's fundamentally selfish and short-termist.
And whilst I'd like to think that we are better than MAGA, I'm not sure we're that much better.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 4m Trump: "Secretary Rubio's team at the State Department has worked tirelessly with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that soccer fans from all throughout the world are properly vetted and able to come to the United States of America next summer easily."
Blowing up the rail track on the Warsaw-Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage targeting directly the security of the Polish state and its civilians. This route is also crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will catch the perpetrators, whoever they are. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1990351051992768568
No question this is an act of war. The only question is how Europe responds.
Russia will of course deny any involvement.
However, although they are almost certainly behind the attack, it's hard to see how it actually serves their purpose. It will surely only serve to harden anti-Russian sentiment across the continent, and indeed the free world.
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
"middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask"
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
Two things.
The Trans question is important for people affected by it. Strip away all the bad faith (of which there is lots), and there is a difficult important question where "how great it would be to be nice to people for a change" is necessary but not sufficient. The Scottish Answer wasn't the answer, for all that the EHRC one isn't either. But the sort of question it is stops us having the sort of courageous conversations that might move things forward.
But all the other questions you mention are of a different sort. We know there are problems with immigration, economy, fiscal balance, Russia, China, the USA, climate and mental health. Deep down, we sort of know what the answers are, but we don't like the consequences. So we half-ass our responses and agree to shut up. It's what humans do.
A lot of the social issue questions we talk about all the time are distraction, but distraciton is theraputic.
My ten cents worth on ten years of fuckery with Robbie Gibb from my time as editor of @Channel4News to trying to get @BBCNews to broadcast our film on Gaza, through No 10, Brexit and Israel the self appointed defender of impartiality, who has utterly destroyed it. https://x.com/bendepear/status/1990429775702167902
Blowing up the rail track on the Warsaw-Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage targeting directly the security of the Polish state and its civilians. This route is also crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will catch the perpetrators, whoever they are. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1990351051992768568
No question this is an act of war. The only question is how Europe responds.
Russia will of course deny any involvement.
However, although they are almost certainly behind the attack, it's hard to see how it actually serves their purpose. It will surely only serve to harden anti-Russian sentiment across the continent, and indeed the free world.
You think that they are rational? 1m dead or seriously wounded soldiers, an economy teetering on the brink and a psychopathic maniac in charge and you want rationality?
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
Indeed. It is important to not over blow things with bollocks historical references that don't stand up. It doesn't help. We are some way away from 1920/30s Germany.
An assessment of the DOJ's handling of the prosecution of James Comey case, by a Court-appointed Magistrate Judge.
It's analysis of the about the Judge's verdict on Lindsey Halligan's following (or not) the law in handling the Grand Jury who whether to issue an indictment, and the integrity of that process, by Katie Phang.
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
"middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask"
They could ask their nannies?
The MC white people on BlueSky are the nouveau poor, they can't afford nannies, they're mostly still kidding themselves that they are 'writers' or 'content creators'.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 4m Trump: "Secretary Rubio's team at the State Department has worked tirelessly with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that soccer fans from all throughout the world are properly vetted and able to come to the United States of America next summer easily."
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
"middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask"
They could ask their nannies?
Middle class people don't have nannies; only those in the top 0.1% have nannies. There are 8.5m families in the UK with dependent children and 7,000 nannies. The maths is straightforward.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
I agree. The proposals are quite specific and detailed, more so than those so far offered by Tories or Reform. It could be a bit of a game-changer in regard to public opinion. Labour soft on illegal immigration? Not any more.
Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?
The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
I'm not really asking whether it's a problem. I'm just wondering what has changed (in this example) due to the SC ruling.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
I do not believe it is an offence, but do believe it is the law. Some things are laws without being offences.
Eg planning regulations require non domestic properties to have single sex facilities or universal ones. Universal ones have different standards, requiring an individual wash basin behind the lock, whereas single sex ones can have communal wash basins.
Facilties can choose single sex or choose universal, AFAIK, but if they make it universal it needs to meet the requirements. If its single sex, well that means women-only in women's facilities.
I don't quite follow your 1st para. Isn't breaking the law always by definition an offence of some sort?
I suspect like me the minutiae and the politics of public lavatories just washed over you and you lost the will to live.
My only understanding of public conveniences is that the male versions all look like the aftermath of a H block dirty protest. No wonder ladies don't want a c*ck in a frock sharing their space.
I used to think this was an issue when it was suggested at a previous workplace that all the toilets be made unisex (they all had sinks in each cubicle), but I have since been disabused of this notion. Apparently, according to those who clean them, women's public toilets are worse than men's. Something to do with using them while "hovering", due to a fear of picking up STIs if sitting on the toilet seat. You can find further evidence for this assertion on mumsnet if you care to do further research on the matter.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
Indeed. It is important to not over blow things with bollocks historical references that don't stand up. It doesn't help. We are some way away from 1920/30s Germany.
Though there are clear signs of the same complacency that pervaded the 1920/30s.
My ten cents worth on ten years of fuckery with Robbie Gibb from my time as editor of @Channel4News to trying to get @BBCNews to broadcast our film on Gaza, through No 10, Brexit and Israel the self appointed defender of impartiality, who has utterly destroyed it. https://x.com/bendepear/status/1990429775702167902
Hilarious madness. Please show us on the dolly where Robbie Gibb spliced your leading investigative documentary show, destroying your brand credibility, blocked people from appearing on your channel who believed women can’t have a cock, and then held up a complaint against a news reader who stated women get pregnant. The BBC have many problems, Mr Gibb is not one of them.
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
This impacted it though see it as important. A good friend of mine almost lost her job for retweeting a post by j k Rowling, went through a safeguarding investigation and told not to come to work. The complaint was manufactured by an lgbt youth activist charity.
Blowing up the rail track on the Warsaw-Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage targeting directly the security of the Polish state and its civilians. This route is also crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will catch the perpetrators, whoever they are. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1990351051992768568
No question this is an act of war. The only question is how Europe responds.
Does responding require us to inconvenience ourselves?
The thing to remember about isolationism, the reason that Trump and MAGA like the idea so much, is that it's fundamentally selfish and short-termist.
And whilst I'd like to think that we are better than MAGA, I'm not sure we're that much better.
One of the most often repeated refrains in Ireland, when justifying a neutral stance on the Russia-Ukraine war, is an opposition to sending young Irish men to fight for Eastern Europe. It does make me wonder, how many men of fighting age would be willing to fight to defend their countries, freedom and democracy, in European countries? Would the population accept the mobilisation that was necessary in World War II?
This is the sort of calculation that Russia will also be making. If they believe that Europe's people are not willing to fight to defend themselves then that will have consequences on how belligerent and aggressive they believe they can get away with being.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 4m Trump: "Secretary Rubio's team at the State Department has worked tirelessly with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that soccer fans from all throughout the world are properly vetted and able to come to the United States of America next summer easily."
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
"middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask"
They could ask their nannies?
Middle class people don't have nannies; only those in the top 0.1% have nannies. There are 8.5m families in the UK with dependent children and 7,000 nannies. The maths is straightforward.
I hired a nanny.
I was very disappointed, a certain genre of film gave me an unrealistic expectation of what that nanny would do for me.
I am talking about Mary Poppins and Nanny McPhee, obviously.
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
The trans issue is important imo but it's of a different nature to the ones you cite there. Something I always wonder about (but can't find an answer to) is how it's handled in other countries. Have some of them managed to get to a position that works for the minority in question and for society as a whole? If so, what is it? Why is this aspect never covered in the debate? Perhaps we in the UK are making rather a meal of all this for whatever reason.
(Godsdammit Cyclefree, you're lapping me. I'm going to have to accelerate my article)
OK, to answer your question "Why, for instance, is counsel stating that transwomen i.e. men who identify as women should be allowed into a female only space, such as a public toilet, on a case by case basis, when the Supreme Court has already ruled that this is not in line with the law and unworkable.", you've overlooked the following points
The Supreme Court did not make single-sex spaces compulsory, they made them possible: the owner of the space can make a space a single-sex space, not must do so.
The "case-by-case" applies to the owner of the space, not to the users of it. If one company wants to make its kitchen a single-sex space then it can, provided it uses The Words[1]. But if another company doesn't want to make its kitchen a single-sex space then it doesn't have to, unless existing law says it must.
The Supreme Court ruling applies only to Equality Act matters, and toilets don't come under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court did mention toilets[2] but that doesn't override the scope of the ruling. I figure the SC was winking at the audience here.
Notes
[1] "provided it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"
[2] Using the euphemism "facilities2 or "sanitary facilities", which I found obfuscatory: this is not the 19th century.
This seems rather to miss the point. Non-single-sex spaces (like dual sex toilets with cubicles) are one thing. Arguably a bigger issue are single sex spaces where a single sex policy is not observed. It is surely contrary to the spirit of the law, if not the letter, to indicate that a space is exclusively for women, but to allow men to use the space if they wish.
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
"middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask"
They could ask their nannies?
Middle class people don't have nannies; only those in the top 0.1% have nannies. There are 8.5m families in the UK with dependent children and 7,000 nannies. The maths is straightforward.
I hired a nanny.
I was very disappointed, a centre genre of film gave me an unrealistic expectation of what that nanny would do for me.
I am talking about Mary Poppins and Nanny McPhee, obviously.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
Indeed. It is important to not over blow things with bollocks historical references that don't stand up. It doesn't help. We are some way away from 1920/30s Germany.
1920s Germany was some way from 1930s Germany. I’d say the one bright spot is Trump (whose coattails Farage has parasitically attached himself to) is a narcissistic old fool stumbling towards senility who has no ideology except Trumpism. No evil genius he.
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
You're right, the people who are affected by the trans issue are just that very rare 1% including: Women prisoners who are locked up with fully functional biological men, those men can act with impunity and are insulated from censure from the authorities. Women who have gone through traumatic experiences with biological men, who are forced to allow biological men to intimately examine them at a rape crisis centre or are turned away. Women who are forced to share changing rooms (they must use or they lose their jobs) with fully functional biological men - who insist they undress in front of them - of face professional censure
It really is a case of "if you tolerate this, your [daughters] will be next"
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
Indeed. It is important to not over blow things with bollocks historical references that don't stand up. It doesn't help. We are some way away from 1920/30s Germany.
1920s Germany was some way from 1930s Germany. I’d say the one bright spot is Trump is a narcissistic old fool stumbling towards senility who has no ideology except Trumpism. No evil genius he.
My ten cents worth on ten years of fuckery with Robbie Gibb from my time as editor of @Channel4News to trying to get @BBCNews to broadcast our film on Gaza, through No 10, Brexit and Israel the self appointed defender of impartiality, who has utterly destroyed it. https://x.com/bendepear/status/1990429775702167902
Note that this sort of complaint is nowhere reflected in the report leaked by the BBC's "impartiality" adviser.
You don't need to be one one side or the other to acknowledge this should be in any kind of enquiry into BBC impartiality.
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
This impacted it though see it as important. A good friend of mine almost lost her job for retweeting a post by j k Rowling, went through a safeguarding investigation and told not to come to work. The complaint was manufactured by an lgbt youth activist charity.
Sure, it's important to those impacted by it. I've known two people who have transitioned, and had to overcome tremendous stigma and prejudice in so doing. It's important to them, of course.
But should we devote numerous threads to something that is very important only to a small proportion of the population? We might as well discuss the challenges of being a paraplegic*, but that again would be a very minority interest.
(*Substitute with your preferred "topic very important to those impacted but of f*ck-all interest to the vast majority".)
The only reason trans comes up again and again imo is because some want to manufacture a 'culture war'.
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
"middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask"
They could ask their nannies?
The MC white people on BlueSky are the nouveau poor, they can't afford nannies, they're mostly still kidding themselves that they are 'writers' or 'content creators'.
Judging by my youtube homepage, you can get quite a lot of content based on 'why my books never get published - THE TRUTH'. Quite often followed by 'Why I'm quitting Youtube!'. Which is quite often followed by "Why I'm back on Youtube - My featured Guardian article on 'why my books don't get published and why I quit Youtube' saved me!"
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
This impacted it though see it as important. A good friend of mine almost lost her job for retweeting a post by j k Rowling, went through a safeguarding investigation and told not to come to work. The complaint was manufactured by an lgbt youth activist charity.
Sure, it's important to those impacted by it. I've known two people who have transitioned, and had to overcome tremendous stigma and prejudice in so doing. It's important to them, of course.
But should we devote numerous threads to something that is very important only to a small proportion of the population? We might as well discuss the challenges of being a paraplegic*, but that again would be a very minority interest.
(*Substitute with your preferred "topic very important to those impacted but of f*ck-all interest to the vast majority".)
The only reason trans comes up again and again imo is because some want to manufacture a 'culture war'.
“Manufacture a culture war” Sure. It becomes a culture war when you see what the monsters are doing.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
Indeed. It is important to not over blow things with bollocks historical references that don't stand up. It doesn't help. We are some way away from 1920/30s Germany.
1920s Germany was some way from 1930s Germany. I’d say the one bright spot is Trump is a narcissistic old fool stumbling towards senility who has no ideology except Trumpism. No evil genius he.
Just taken the temperature on BlueSky, where lots of white middle class people are upset that a brown person isn't that keen on illegal immigration.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
"middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask"
They could ask their nannies?
I remember the BBC R4 show "Clare in the Community" ("She is white, middle class and heterosexual, but does not like to be reminded of it."). Sometimes quite biting. I can't remember the exact dialogue, but it was something like :
Clare: Oh no! Mike and Janine are moving away!
Husband: Oh, that's sad. I liked them!
Clare: No, I mean.. It took me ages to get some black friends. Now what will I do?
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
Indeed. It is important to not over blow things with bollocks historical references that don't stand up. It doesn't help. We are some way away from 1920/30s Germany.
1920s Germany was some way from 1930s Germany. I’d say the one bright spot is Trump is a narcissistic old fool stumbling towards senility who has no ideology except Trumpism. No evil genius he.
6th of January 2021 was the Beer Hall Putsch.
Which was a farce - though with some deaths and injuries.
Many thought it was the end of the Nazis, at the time.
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
This impacted it though see it as important. A good friend of mine almost lost her job for retweeting a post by j k Rowling, went through a safeguarding investigation and told not to come to work. The complaint was manufactured by an lgbt youth activist charity.
Sure, it's important to those impacted by it. I've known two people who have transitioned, and had to overcome tremendous stigma and prejudice in so doing. It's important to them, of course.
But should we devote numerous threads to something that is very important only to a small proportion of the population? We might as well discuss the challenges of being a paraplegic*, but that again would be a very minority interest.
(*Substitute with your preferred "topic very important to those impacted but of f*ck-all interest to the vast majority".)
The only reason trans comes up again and again imo is because some want to manufacture a 'culture war'.
I've got no idea if what the Home Secretary has proposed will work, but that sure as hell is a change of direction, and at least to my ears it sounded like some thought had gone into the proposals. It will be interesting to see how the public receives these plans.
It's going to need opposition votes to pass IMO but it will get through. The Tories can't be seen to oppose this and neutralising Reform on immigration helps them as much as it does Labour.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
It's interesting that Labour are willing to risk tearing themselves apart like this. Is it because they think it is the right thing to do or because they are terrified of Farage and his brownshirts? Maybe both.
Most of the MPs in the north and midlands must be aware that they are likely to be booted out at the next GE, the public mood has shifted heavily on this issue in the last 12-18 months.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
By the way the “brownshirts” characterisation is a strong contender for most hyperbolic bollocks of the year.
Indeed. It is important to not over blow things with bollocks historical references that don't stand up. It doesn't help. We are some way away from 1920/30s Germany.
1920s Germany was some way from 1930s Germany. I’d say the one bright spot is Trump is a narcissistic old fool stumbling towards senility who has no ideology except Trumpism. No evil genius he.
6th of January 2021 was the Beer Hall Putsch.
Fortunately Trump was 75 at the time, not 34. Also of course he has no ideology beyond Make Trump Richer.
Blowing up the rail track on the Warsaw-Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage targeting directly the security of the Polish state and its civilians. This route is also crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will catch the perpetrators, whoever they are. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1990351051992768568
No question this is an act of war. The only question is how Europe responds.
Does responding require us to inconvenience ourselves?
The thing to remember about isolationism, the reason that Trump and MAGA like the idea so much, is that it's fundamentally selfish and short-termist.
And whilst I'd like to think that we are better than MAGA, I'm not sure we're that much better.
One of the most often repeated refrains in Ireland, when justifying a neutral stance on the Russia-Ukraine war, is an opposition to sending young Irish men to fight for Eastern Europe. It does make me wonder, how many men of fighting age would be willing to fight to defend their countries, freedom and democracy, in European countries? Would the population accept the mobilisation that was necessary in World War II?
This is the sort of calculation that Russia will also be making. If they believe that Europe's people are not willing to fight to defend themselves then that will have consequences on how belligerent and aggressive they believe they can get away with being.
Didn't the Russians believe that about Ukraine's people too? A slight miscalculation.
I struggle to understand why we devote so much PB time to the trans issue. I'd guess that 99% of the UK public don't give it much thought at all.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
This impacted it though see it as important. A good friend of mine almost lost her job for retweeting a post by j k Rowling, went through a safeguarding investigation and told not to come to work. The complaint was manufactured by an lgbt youth activist charity.
Sure, it's important to those impacted by it. I've known two people who have transitioned, and had to overcome tremendous stigma and prejudice in so doing. It's important to them, of course.
But should we devote numerous threads to something that is very important only to a small proportion of the population? We might as well discuss the challenges of being a paraplegic*, but that again would be a very minority interest.
(*Substitute with your preferred "topic very important to those impacted but of f*ck-all interest to the vast majority".)
The only reason trans comes up again and again imo is because some want to manufacture a 'culture war'.
Are trans activists prosecuting a culture war?
Are trans activists continually raising 'trans' on PB?
My ten cents worth on ten years of fuckery with Robbie Gibb from my time as editor of @Channel4News to trying to get @BBCNews to broadcast our film on Gaza, through No 10, Brexit and Israel the self appointed defender of impartiality, who has utterly destroyed it. https://x.com/bendepear/status/1990429775702167902
Hilarious madness. Please show us on the dolly where Robbie Gibb spliced your leading investigative documentary show, destroying your brand credibility, blocked people from appearing on your channel who believed women can’t have a cock, and then held up a complaint against a news reader who stated women get pregnant. The BBC have many problems, Mr Gibb is not one of them.
Comments
She referred in blunt terms to a common form of street abuse that southern asian people experience.
Those who do not identify as their sex need a self contained facility too.
A decade ago we often already then used disabled facilities, including at John Lewis in Trafford Centre IIRC which dual purposed as baby changing rooms too.
In this town Billy says "everybody says you gotta follow rules."
Hey you walk up to those traffic lights,
Switch from your left to right
You push in that button, and when that button comes alight
It tells you
"Walk don't walk
Talk don't talk"
Hey Billy take a walk... with me.
By far the Boomtown rats best song although Don't like Mondays is better known.
But governments - both Scottish and English - ignoring the law and women's rights are not taken seriously by this forum. So I will leave you to it.
I don't often comment on this subject now that the argument has been won and sanity has prevailed over the perverted men in dresses invading women's spaces. This probably is the last frontier of that argument where it seems fair to make some exceptions for men who have undergone surgery and made the lifetime commitment to passing as a woman. However, there can be no backsliding and allowing those men who don't make that commitment into those exceptions.
I have absolutely no qualms sharing the mens changing rooms with any other men, whether they be straight or gay or identify as women.
The problem is not men not wanting to share the men's changing facilities.
The issue is how to deal with those men who do not want to use the men's facilities.
Some suggest those men should be in the women's facilities. I think encouraging sex-neutral facilities for those who do not wish to use their actual sexes facilities would be much better than showing your penis in a woman's one.
What do you think?
It could be a bit of a game-changer in regard to public opinion. Labour soft on illegal immigration? Not any more.
Realistically for this to work I think some kind of HRA reform will need to be enacted to dissapply the ECHR on matters of immigration and asylum and dare the judges to overrule Parliament.
Good on ITV News!
"Someone's Looking at You" - the best Rats song.
It has the immortal lines about Sate surveillance of protests:
"They saw me there in the square when I was shooting my mouth off about saving some fish. Now could that be construed as some radical's views or some liberals' wish"
3-4 years ago I felt the wave of pro-trans activism had gone too far. Attacks on gender critical women and the creeping social pressure towards stating your pronouns.
And I've never really understood what gender - as distinct from sex - means on a personal basis. I am, factually, a man, but I don't feel any parts of my personality are defined based on that. Equality between the sexes is the key thing - people can be whoever they want to be from a social perspective.
I now feel like that balance has been restored, largely thanks to gender critical women such as Cyclefree, but also more widely. I was on that side when debating people I knew.
But for me, I was never convinced that toilets were the correct battle ground. Women's toilets have private cubicles. They have a shared space not dissimilar to gender neutral toilets that are legal. Any other actions (public display of nudity etc) can be dealt with as they occur.
Women's prisons, women-only shelters, shared female changing spaces - I agree should be man free. But I think a reasonable compromise for trans people is they can generally use facilities of their chosen gender so long as they use private facilities within said spaces (e.g. toilet cubicle, private changing cubicle).
Now what Labour should do is work out what their position is and update the law accordingly. Not drag their heels in court over the fact the current law doesn't say what they'd like it to.
Before that very few people worried about the topic except where some obviously dodgy hairy ne'er do well was prowling about women's areas with ill intentions. Then halfwits and zealots started putting skirts on and thinking they could just go into women's areas and wave their willies about and say it was the law that they claimed to be women rather than fact they were pervies.
End result is only baddies will be affected and zealots will witter on about their rights being more important than the majorities rights etc and PB will witter on about it constantly.
I think this is the winter fuel payments mk2 - he'll march them all up this hill, and march them all down again 12 hrs before the vote when his whips tell him he's going to lose his party's part of the vote come what may.
But they ran away. Repeatedly.
A bit like Trumpmand the BBC, toilets has derailed this a bit on here. While toilets can be an issue, most (all?) women’s toilets are cubicles. The real problem is changing rooms, women’s refuges etc.
Everyone, independently, hit on the same idea - magnetic exploders. The torpedos would pass beneath the ships, detonating when the magnetic field was highest.
A mix of poor testing, variable local anomalies in the Earths magnetic field etc caused this to turn out to be unreliable - initially.
The Americans then had the bad luck to discover the contact fusing system didn’t work either.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did the same here. Opposition for its own sake.
Eg planning regulations require non domestic properties to have single sex facilities or universal ones. Universal ones have different standards, requiring an individual wash basin behind the lock, whereas single sex ones can have communal wash basins.
Facilties can choose single sex or choose universal, AFAIK, but if they make it universal it needs to meet the requirements. If its single sex, well that means women-only in women's facilities.
As I said, I'm not debating what the law says. I'm debating what I think it should be.
Women should have some privacy from men at the basin too.
Back when Starmer was in opposition, I recall posing that amoungst the reasons why I wouldn't ever vote Labour was that whilst Starmer might seem moderate and reasonable, he still had lined up behind him a motley collection of left-wing gouls and demons he wouldn't be able to control.
It seems I wasn't wrong.
Civil issues generally aren't 'offences' AFAIK, even where the law is in play.
Still think Rat Trap is better though.
Even the leafy suburbs now have a smattering of recent arrivals hanging about, so it should make for some interesting local election results.
They'd have been shocked to meet my 2nd gen Uber driver last week, who was appalled at the town being 'full' of recent arrivals being put up in a hotel, when his Dad arrived here legally with literally nothing to work in a textile mill, and eventually started a business that now employs scores of people.
Of course the middle class white people don't know any working class brown people to ask, so they just project their own wishes and thoughts onto them.
My only understanding of public conveniences is that the male versions all look like the aftermath of a H block dirty protest. No wonder ladies don't want a c*ck in a frock sharing their space.
https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1990351051992768568
No question this is an act of war.
The only question is how Europe responds.
Immigration; the economy; spending/taxation/deficit; the threat to European order from Russia; our dependence on China; the perils facing US democracy; climate change; the mental health crisis...
All these are far more significant than 'trans' imo.
The thing to remember about isolationism, the reason that Trump and MAGA like the idea so much, is that it's fundamentally selfish and short-termist.
And whilst I'd like to think that we are better than MAGA, I'm not sure we're that much better.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
4m
Trump: "Secretary Rubio's team at the State Department has worked tirelessly with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that soccer fans from all throughout the world are properly vetted and able to come to the United States of America next summer easily."
https://x.com/atrupar
However, although they are almost certainly behind the attack, it's hard to see how it actually serves their purpose. It will surely only serve to harden anti-Russian sentiment across the continent, and indeed the free world.
They could ask their nannies?
The Trans question is important for people affected by it. Strip away all the bad faith (of which there is lots), and there is a difficult important question where "how great it would be to be nice to people for a change" is necessary but not sufficient. The Scottish Answer wasn't the answer, for all that the EHRC one isn't either. But the sort of question it is stops us having the sort of courageous conversations that might move things forward.
But all the other questions you mention are of a different sort. We know there are problems with immigration, economy, fiscal balance, Russia, China, the USA, climate and mental health. Deep down, we sort of know what the answers are, but we don't like the consequences. So we half-ass our responses and agree to shut up. It's what humans do.
A lot of the social issue questions we talk about all the time are distraction, but distraciton is theraputic.
to broadcast our film on Gaza, through No 10, Brexit and Israel the self appointed defender of impartiality, who has utterly destroyed it.
https://x.com/bendepear/status/1990429775702167902
It's analysis of the about the Judge's verdict on Lindsey Halligan's following (or not) the law in handling the Grand Jury who whether to issue an indictment, and the integrity of that process, by Katie Phang.
(TLDR: Halligan and the case are probably toast.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go8ax8sBrZE
Does this include protecting them from the secret police?
I dont personally have a problem with removing asylum seekers if their country becomes safe again. I suspect it will never happen in practice anyway.
The BBC have many problems, Mr Gibb is not one of them.
This is the sort of calculation that Russia will also be making. If they believe that Europe's people are not willing to fight to defend themselves then that will have consequences on how belligerent and aggressive they believe they can get away with being.
I was very disappointed, a certain genre of film gave me an unrealistic expectation of what that nanny would do for me.
I am talking about Mary Poppins and Nanny McPhee, obviously.
I would not do well in prison.
I’d say the one bright spot is Trump (whose coattails Farage has parasitically attached himself to) is a narcissistic old fool stumbling towards senility who has no ideology except Trumpism. No evil genius he.
Women prisoners who are locked up with fully functional biological men, those men can act with impunity and are insulated from censure from the authorities.
Women who have gone through traumatic experiences with biological men, who are forced to allow biological men to intimately examine them at a rape crisis centre or are turned away.
Women who are forced to share changing rooms (they must use or they lose their jobs) with fully functional biological men - who insist they undress in front of them - of face professional censure
It really is a case of "if you tolerate this, your [daughters] will be next"
You don't need to be one one side or the other to acknowledge this should be in any kind of enquiry into BBC impartiality.
But should we devote numerous threads to something that is very important only to a small proportion of the population? We might as well discuss the challenges of being a paraplegic*, but that again would be a very minority interest.
(*Substitute with your preferred "topic very important to those impacted but of f*ck-all interest to the vast majority".)
The only reason trans comes up again and again imo is because some want to manufacture a 'culture war'.
We need a word that suggests several orders of magnitude beyond omnishamles.
Sure. It becomes a culture war when you see what the monsters are doing.
Clare: Oh no! Mike and Janine are moving away!
Husband: Oh, that's sad. I liked them!
Clare: No, I mean.. It took me ages to get some black friends. Now what will I do?
Many thought it was the end of the Nazis, at the time.
And who made you judge and jury ?