Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.
I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.
It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.
Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.
Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.
The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.
That's not quite true: there are plenty of people (0.2-0.3%) who have things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and the like.
It also raises an interesting question: how would you feel if you found out that there was a genetic sequence that people who identified as trans typically had, and those who did not, didn't?
If the evidence changed then I would change my stance. In the event of it being supported by biology then society should make reasonable adjustments to support that in the same way a disability would be (excuse the comparison but it seems most apt). However, no such evidence has been found.
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.
I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.
It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.
Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.
Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.
The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.
That's not quite true: there are plenty of people (0.2-0.3%) who have things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and the like.
It also raises an interesting question: how would you feel if you found out that there was a genetic sequence that people who identified as trans typically had, and those who did not, didn't?
What would you do about the atypical cases? If you test someone who is not trans but they have the trans gene, should we regard them as suffering from repressed trans syndrome and encourage them to connect with their true identity?
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.
I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.
It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.
Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.
Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.
The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.
That's not quite true: there are plenty of people (0.2-0.3%) who have things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and the like.
It also raises an interesting question: how would you feel if you found out that there was a genetic sequence that people who identified as trans typically had, and those who did not, didn't?
There are quacks claiming to be able to identify gay and trans people by genes as embryos. And offering abortions...
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.
I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.
It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.
Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.
Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.
The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.
Gender surgery is not allowed under the age of 18 years and always has been in the UK.
One of the interesting things about the closure of the Tavistock is that the wave of lawsuits that the anti-Trans lobby were salivating over never appeared. There have only been a handful, and most of those were about delayed access to care.
Robin Brooks @robin_j_brooks · 5h We already know the winner in the war with Iran and that's Russia. The closure of the Straits of Hormuz has swung Russian crude from pariah to prized commodity. Urals oil price is the highest since right after the Ukraine invasion. Putin is loving this...
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Maybe you should get better educated and listen to Cyclefree then?
I assure you that marrying a trans woman was a better education - and a great deal more fun - than you will ever experience, my middle-of-nowhere-dwelling, suburbanite, car-obsessed, bootlicking chum. Don't you have a retail park to be driving to, or an illegal war to be justifying?
I would just say @Cyclefree is well respected and entitiled to publish on a subject she has views on, no matter how controversial
You make a fair and interesting response, and so much better than trying to close down debate
And I am sure we wish @Cyclefree all the best in her serious health battle
It's just an extraordinary yawn, isn't it? "The law says this, therefore we must obey it..."
For most of British history, homosexuality was illegal but slavery was legal - what is *the law* is not the same as what is right or in keeping with societal norms. And an argument that fails to engage with that - repeatedly - is just the boring Sunday afternoon repeat we've heard over and over on this site over and over. For heaven's sake, there are other TERF adjacent sites to publish such (let's say the line) vapid bilge on.
If someone wants to make the case for stripping a bunch of people's rights from them which they have held since the 2004 GRA then make the case for it, morally. Don't just say "it's the law". That is not the locus of political debate.
The law needs to be obeyed but the law can also be an ass, as the Supreme Court came close to conceding when it said, to the effect, our job is to interpret the law - of you don't like it, change the law.
The government clearly has no intention of changing the law - a hornet's nest - but can't provide sensible guidance without changing the law, precisely because it is an ass
On Government definition of islamophobia, I don't see a problem given it has the same for anti-Semitism. But maybe we don't need either?
The problem is that various interests will be tugging on the matter.
Remember the proposed law that would have (accidentally) meant publishing the truth about the Thing We Can’t Talk About Because Of @SeanT illegal?
Unfortunately. Anyhow, this is what I would do.
The purpose of the Equality Act is to prevent discrimination on sex. As discrimination is generally a bad thing, I would amend the Act so the same general prohibition on discrimination would apply to gender as well. You would not, for example, be allowed to pay trans people less for the same job.
The Act does allow discrimination on sex under defined conditions, for example sports, education etc. Where this discrimination is optional on sex I would also allow optional discrimination on gender. ie sporting bodies, refuges, Women's Institute etc can take their own decisions about whether to admit trans people - if you don't like the decision, you take your objections to the institutions governing body and, importantly, don't resort to the courts.
In a few cases discrimination is mandated. I suggest the Act should require the Government to provide regulatory guidance on how that discrimination on sex and gender is to be applied. This covers situations like prisons.
It would be a balanced approach. Not particularly trans friendly but that's where British public opinion is on this issue I think. Other countries are considerably more liberal.
But of course nothing sensible will be done precisely because of those vested interests.
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Maybe you should get better educated and listen to Cyclefree then?
I assure you that marrying a trans woman was a better education - and a great deal more fun - than you will ever experience, my middle-of-nowhere-dwelling, suburbanite, car-obsessed, bootlicking chum. Don't you have a retail park to be driving to, or an illegal war to be justifying?
I would just say @Cyclefree is well respected and entitiled to publish on a subject she has views on, no matter how controversial
You make a fair and interesting response, and so much better than trying to close down debate
And I am sure we wish @Cyclefree all the best in her serious health battle
It's just an extraordinary yawn, isn't it? "The law says this, therefore we must obey it..."
For most of British history, homosexuality was illegal but slavery was legal - what is *the law* is not the same as what is right or in keeping with societal norms. And an argument that fails to engage with that - repeatedly - is just the boring Sunday afternoon repeat we've heard over and over on this site over and over. For heaven's sake, there are other TERF adjacent sites to publish such (let's say the line) vapid bilge on.
If someone wants to make the case for stripping a bunch of people's rights from them which they have held since the 2004 GRA then make the case for it, morally. Don't just say "it's the law". That is not the locus of political debate.
The law needs to be obeyed but the law can also be an ass, as the Supreme Court came close to conceding when it said, to the effect, our job is to interpret the law - if you don't like it, change the law.
The government clearly has no intention of changing the law - a hornet's nest - but can't provide sensible guidance without changing the law, precisely because it is an ass
On Government definition of islamophobia, I don't see a problem given it has the same for anti-Semitism. But maybe we don't need either?
It seems that antisemitism and islamophobia have a sort of seesaw dynamic. Whenever one of them is in the spotlight the people who are particularly concerned about the other one become irritated and upset.
Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward
Sensible to dial down the rhetoric
He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support' Our humiliation is almost complere
Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.
Not for the first time i may be wrong or i may be right May the road rise with me
Do you frequently find yourself energised by a general sense of anger? I get the sense that you do.
I saw the Top of the Pops performance of that song the other day. I absolutely loved TOTP as a kid, and remember seeing the video to Rise on it at the time, but there isn’t a programme that has aged as badly. The conceit of grown ups miming and acting that way just looks so stupid nowadays
Well done Kyf. A couple of posts from then heart. Worth all of the anodyne rubbish put together. I would like to try to answer your first question but I have no answer. Some people like the subject and want to be prescriptive is the best I can do. I hope you weren't too offended.
Aww, thanks. I met the then to be Mrs. Kyf long before I ever posted on PB, and it never occurred to me that her existence might one day be a debated topic here. Theresa May as PM advocated self-ID. Anne Widdecombe, of all people, has written in GB news, of all places, that trans women should be treated as women.
Hence: I don't think it's a left/right issue - it's one of common decency. Regrettably, it's both fascinating and noteworthy that the people whose views on the topic (e.g. barty favouring carpet bombing the middle east) seem to treat others as subhuman as well.
Not at all. Our Prime Minister dithered.. did not offer instant support of as a de minimus use of air bases. If anyone has questions to ask its Starmer not me. There are any number of adjective that describe Starmer... all building up to the fact that he is not up to the job. What a sorry state that the alternatives are even worse.
I have genuinely no idea what rights men in dresses have lost. I also wonder if identifying as a woman is a thing, why not as a toddler, or a person of colour? Or a sheep? I feel for trans people. I suspect that a lot of people with issues who just want a quiet life are suffering the backlash caused by a bunch of probably fetishistic men
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.
I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.
It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.
Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.
Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.
The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.
That's not quite true: there are plenty of people (0.2-0.3%) who have things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and the like.
It also raises an interesting question: how would you feel if you found out that there was a genetic sequence that people who identified as trans typically had, and those who did not, didn't?
If it was some kind of mental illness I wouldn’t be surprised
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.
I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.
It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.
Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.
Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.
The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.
That's not quite true: there are plenty of people (0.2-0.3%) who have things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and the like.
It also raises an interesting question: how would you feel if you found out that there was a genetic sequence that people who identified as trans typically had, and those who did not, didn't?
What would you do about the atypical cases? If you test someone who is not trans but they have the trans gene, should we regard them as suffering from repressed trans syndrome and encourage them to connect with their true identity?
I'm not suggesting anything!
I'm just pointing out that it is a tiny bit simplistic to say that everyone is XX or XY, because there is a meaningful percentage of the population (0.2-0.3%) who are not. And then I was musing about what what if there turned out to be genetic markers that correlated strongly with being trans.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't surprise me if there were markers. But as far as I know no one has looked for any yet: largely because neither of the most vocal groups on this debate want to find out if there is a particular genetic predisoposition. The trans lobby, because it cuts away at self ID. And the anti-trans lobby, because it would mean there was a genetic marker that indicated people were likely to feel a certain way.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward
Sensible to dial down the rhetoric
He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support' Our humiliation is almost complere
Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.
Not for the first time i may be wrong or i may be right May the road rise with me
Do you frequently find yourself energised by a general sense of anger? I get the sense that you do.
I saw the Top of the Pops performance of that song the other day. I absolutely loved TOTP as a kid, and remember seeing the video to Rise on it at the time, but there isn’t a programme that has aged as badly. The conceit of grown ups miming and acting that way just looks so stupid nowadays
Yes, not the music but the cheesy, rather patronising presentation. Miss it though.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
You know, I think you've inspired me to write a PB header on the topic.
Not at all. Our Prime Minister dithered.. did not offer instant support of as a de minimus use of air bases. If anyone has questions to ask its Starmer not me. There are any number of adjective that describe Starmer... all building up to the fact that he is not up to the job. What a sorry state that the alternatives are even worse.
He didn't either, he said no, as per international law. He then allowed the use of bases for self defense, as per international law.
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Most things seem to be beyond you. Maybe you should educate yourself.
I do love a good libertarian who has no interest in civil liberties or human rights.
It is because of my interest in civil liberties and human rights that I agree with Cyclefree and the Supreme Court judgement. As someone has already said it is you who are on the wrong side of history and who wants to take away rights from women.
Indeed. As ever the rights of individuals stop at the point when they impinge on the rights of other individuals. We have XX and XY. That's biology. The right of women to not have their spaces invaded by biological XY men overrides any individual rights of that XY man.
Happily it does seem that the worm has turned, the lawsuits are starting and the doctors that mutilated children and performed these operations on them are being held accountable for profiteering from kids being a bit confused during puberty.
The support for the men in dresses has collapsed everywhere. Even among liberal Americans it's just fallen through the floor which does explain why the supporters are becoming increasingly shrill and angry.
That's not quite true: there are plenty of people (0.2-0.3%) who have things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and the like.
It also raises an interesting question: how would you feel if you found out that there was a genetic sequence that people who identified as trans typically had, and those who did not, didn't?
What would you do about the atypical cases? If you test someone who is not trans but they have the trans gene, should we regard them as suffering from repressed trans syndrome and encourage them to connect with their true identity?
I'm not suggesting anything!
I'm just pointing out that it is a tiny bit simplistic to say that everyone is XX or XY, because there is a meaningful percentage of the population (0.2-0.3%) who are not. And then I was musing about what what if there turned out to be genetic markers that correlated strongly with being trans.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't surprise me if there were markers. But as far as I know no one has looked for any yet: largely because neither of the most vocal groups on this debate want to find out if there is a particular genetic predisoposition. The trans lobby, because it cuts away at self ID. And the anti-trans lobby, because it would mean there was a genetic marker that indicated people were likely to feel a certain way.
As with everything else to do with DNA and genetic markers I am of the opinion that, outside of annonymised statistical study or medical treatment, no one should allow their genetic makeup to be known to any extrenal organisation - whether commerical or governmental. There is too much risk of such information being used to the detriment of the individual.
Not at all. Our Prime Minister dithered.. did not offer instant support of as a de minimus use of air bases. If anyone has questions to ask its Starmer not me. There are any number of adjective that describe Starmer... all building up to the fact that he is not up to the job. What a sorry state that the alternatives are even worse.
He didn't either, he said no, as per international law. He then allowed the use of bases for self defense, as per international law.
'International law' - no, just what Richard Hermer reckons today which is whatever SKS wanted him to tell him to fit whatever he wants to do or not do Its not immutable stuff on stone tablets
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
Kyf's not on the extreme end. Eg he doesn't support self-ID (which several countries have btw). Cyclefree's position is actually the more extreme of the two.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
If we went back to the era of transgender people actually trying to pass as their chosen gender, having the sex change operation, not trying to push their ideology on kids and generally just living low key lives nobody would give a fuck and they'd anonymously use women's facilities without either the women or society at large even realising other than the odd case here or there. Instead today we have men with cocks putting on dresses and demanding access to single sex women's spaces making absolutely zero effort to even pretend that they actually have gender dysphoria. The clap back is always "it's a spectrum" and not all transgender people are the same and some don't want to have the operation or even try and pass as their chosen gender but if that's the case then why does society indulge them. If they don't have gender dysphoria then what exactly is the reason then "need" access to single sex spaces?
But apparently that's a fascist perspective so what do I know.
Robin Brooks @robin_j_brooks · 5h We already know the winner in the war with Iran and that's Russia. The closure of the Straits of Hormuz has swung Russian crude from pariah to prized commodity. Urals oil price is the highest since right after the Ukraine invasion. Putin is loving this...
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
I think if we combine the two we get Iain M. Banks' Surface Detail which basically features people trapped in computer simulated versions of hell.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
Calm down mate, don't get the stockings and suspenders you're wearing while you wrote that in a twist...
You seem to regard it as "competing" rights but the vast majority of women don't agree with you. Cf Kelly v Leonardo, or the numerous WI branches (including the substantial Manchester branch) that have shut their doors rather than obey a lawfare-imposed diktat that excludes trans women. Perhaps we could try listening to women for once?
A reminder: Cyclefree may be the only woman who posts here (not quite, honorable mentions must go to Moonrabbit's excellent work on Chagos and others who clearly provide great value to the site!), but Cyclefree's opinions no more represent mainstream female opinion than Max or Leon represent all male opinion.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
If we went back to the era of transgender people actually trying to pass as their chosen gender, having the sex change operation, not trying to push their ideology on kids and generally just living low key lives nobody would give a fuck and they'd anonymously use women's facilities without either the women or society at large even realising other than the odd case here or there. Instead today we have men with cocks putting on dresses and demanding access to single sex women's spaces making absolutely zero effort to even pretend that they actually have gender dysphoria. The clap back is always "it's a spectrum" and not all transgender people are the same and some don't want to have the operation or even try and pass as their chosen gender but if that's the case then why does society indulge them. If they don't have gender dysphoria then what exactly is the reason then "need" access to single sex spaces?
But apparently that's a fascist perspective so what do I know.
If it's a fascist perspective that means the majority of Brits are fascist because I am fairly certain a majority of sensible, kind, not-crazy Brits would agree with your liberal humane take on this. My post op trans friend - female - entirely agrees with this
And yet somehow the debate is driven by a tiny percentage of extremist nutters who are horribly aggressive and have managed to capture multiple institutions with their lunacy., And thousands of children have suffered as a result
Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward
Sensible to dial down the rhetoric
He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support' Our humiliation is almost complere
Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.
Not for the first time i may be wrong or i may be right May the road rise with me
Do you frequently find yourself energised by a general sense of anger? I get the sense that you do.
I saw the Top of the Pops performance of that song the other day. I absolutely loved TOTP as a kid, and remember seeing the video to Rise on it at the time, but there isn’t a programme that has aged as badly. The conceit of grown ups miming and acting that way just looks so stupid nowadays
Yes, not the music but the cheesy, rather patronising presentation. Miss it though.
I feel the same when I see Liam Gallagher giving it the big one. All that ‘come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough’ attitude while he’s singing about eggmen coo-coo cachoo… is it me getting old or is it a bit silly?
Do they have a section for cats at Crufts? Dogs are such wankers
Even if it existed no self-respecting cat would be seen dead near it...
Because they prefer to die trying to cross the road on their own?
Dogs have a coronary at unexpected plimsoles. Spazzos
I like dogs but this made me laugh out loud.
Im actually doing PR for the cat community. They were very particular about me belittling dogs. Strangely, not as part of the PR work package. Just as something 'i should get into'
Well done Kyf. A couple of posts from then heart. Worth all of the anodyne rubbish put together. I would like to try to answer your first question but I have no answer. Some people like the subject and want to be prescriptive is the best I can do. I hope you weren't too offended.
Aww, thanks. I met the then to be Mrs. Kyf long before I ever posted on PB, and it never occurred to me that her existence might one day be a debated topic here. Theresa May as PM advocated self-ID. Anne Widdecombe, of all people, has written in GB news, of all places, that trans women should be treated as women.
Hence: I don't think it's a left/right issue - it's one of common decency. Regrettably, it's both fascinating and noteworthy that the people whose views on the topic (e.g. barty favouring carpet bombing the middle east) seem to treat others as subhuman as well.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
Kyf's not on the extreme end. Eg he doesn't support self-ID (which several countries have btw). Cyclefree's position is actually the more extreme of the two.
Thank you for remembering that, and you are right. I think trans status should be accorded to those with a psychiatric diagnosis and on active treatment (i.e. taking hormones on and a pathway to SRS)
Where it is complicated, sadly, is that the average wait time to even receive a diagnosis on the NHS is 12 years. My partner got her diagnosis at 19 (she had already been through "the system" as a child) and had SRS in her late 20s. So if we assume we no longer treat "trans" kids because it's "political", one would have to come out to the NHS at 18, wait 12 years for an appointment, and another 8-10 before SRS. So even if you came out at 18, you would not be "a woman" until middle age.
So: while my views are transmedicalist, they are predicated on a trans woman being able to access hormones and surgery within an reasonable timeframe. Not coming out as a teenager and being stuck in limbo until middle age.
Stats for Lefties is a pb dream. Trans, Zarah Sultanaite, posts model output of polls that leans heavily to giving greens lots of seats (and used to do the same for YP when they had voters)
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
If we went back to the era of transgender people actually trying to pass as their chosen gender, having the sex change operation, not trying to push their ideology on kids and generally just living low key lives nobody would give a fuck and they'd anonymously use women's facilities without either the women or society at large even realising other than the odd case here or there. Instead today we have men with cocks putting on dresses and demanding access to single sex women's spaces making absolutely zero effort to even pretend that they actually have gender dysphoria. The clap back is always "it's a spectrum" and not all transgender people are the same and some don't want to have the operation or even try and pass as their chosen gender but if that's the case then why does society indulge them. If they don't have gender dysphoria then what exactly is the reason then "need" access to single sex spaces?
But apparently that's a fascist perspective so what do I know.
If it's a fascist perspective that means the majority of Brits are fascist because I am fairly certain a majority of sensible, kind, not-crazy Brits would agree with your liberal humane take on this. My post op trans friend - female - entirely agrees with this
And yet somehow the debate is driven by a tiny percentage of extremist nutters who are horribly aggressive and have managed to capture multiple institutions with their lunacy., And thousands of children have suffered as a result
There's a subset of perverted men who have seen the ability to satisfy their perversions by putting on dresses and invading women's spaces. By doing it under the cover of transgenderism it made them impervious to criticism for a very long time and sadly actual transgender people who have got gender dysphoria are losing their rights in the process of getting these perverts out of women's spaces.
The radical activists tried to get a maximalist solution that called men bigots for not wanting to date transgender women and tried to cancel lesbians for not wanting to date biological men along with access to single sex spaces for men who hadn't undergone sex change surgery and still had male organs, full beards and were visibly male.
Unsurprisingly this has backfired on them and today genuine transgender people have fewer rights than they started with before this whole saga, which is the real tragedy in all of this IMO.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
* Although I disagree with @Cyclefree's gender-critical stance (and the way it can sometimes overwhelm her articles), I don't have a problem with her writing articles for PB and I hope she continues to do so * On International Women's Day, you might want to read this article by Alice Evans, which focusses on the international aspect, highlighting the different obstacles faced by women across different continents and regions: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/06/what-people-get-wrong-about-womens-rights * I would have to turn in my Star Trek card if I did not post the graphic below
* Although I disagree with @Cyclefree's gender-critical stance (and the way it can sometimes overwhelm her articles), I don't have a problem with her writing articles for PB and I hope she continues to do so * On International Women's Day, you might want to read this article by Alice Evans, which focusses on the international aspect, highlighting the different obstacles faced by women across different continents and regions: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/06/what-people-get-wrong-about-womens-rights * I would have to turn in my Star Trek card if I did not post the graphic below
On Star Trek - should be noted that there was some ghastly behaviour by the show runners toward ms women on DS9 and Voyager.
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Maybe you should get better educated and listen to Cyclefree then?
I assure you that marrying a trans woman was a better education - and a great deal more fun - than you will ever experience, my middle-of-nowhere-dwelling, suburbanite, car-obsessed, bootlicking chum. Don't you have a retail park to be driving to, or an illegal war to be justifying?
I would just say @Cyclefree is well respected and entitiled to publish on a subject she has views on, no matter how controversial
You make a fair and interesting response, and so much better than trying to close down debate
And I am sure we wish @Cyclefree all the best in her serious health battle
It's just an extraordinary yawn, isn't it? "The law says this, therefore we must obey it..."
For most of British history, homosexuality was illegal but slavery was legal - what is *the law* is not the same as what is right or in keeping with societal norms. And an argument that fails to engage with that - repeatedly - is just the boring Sunday afternoon repeat we've heard over and over on this site over and over. For heaven's sake, there are other TERF adjacent sites to publish such (let's say the line) vapid bilge on.
If someone wants to make the case for stripping a bunch of people's rights from them which they have held since the 2004 GRA then make the case for it, morally. Don't just say "it's the law". That is not the locus of political debate.
Starmer subcontracts his moral judgement to the Supreme Court. Whatever they say is the law, is right.
The thing that he is missing, is that the job he has, is to be the chief law maker in the UK.
Nonsense.
He subcontracts it to the International Court of Justice.
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
I know I'm not in The Sim because I've never had a pop up advert tell me my free trial of the Colour Experience is ending and I'll transition to the Greyscale Plan unless I upgrade my subscription details by the end of the month.
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
* Although I disagree with @Cyclefree's gender-critical stance (and the way it can sometimes overwhelm her articles), I don't have a problem with her writing articles for PB and I hope she continues to do so * On International Women's Day, you might want to read this article by Alice Evans, which focusses on the international aspect, highlighting the different obstacles faced by women across different continents and regions: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/06/what-people-get-wrong-about-womens-rights * I would have to turn in my Star Trek card if I did not post the graphic below
Jadzia, of course, transitioned from male to female, was accepted by all the crew, lusted after by many of them, and even the Klingons - the most dick-swinging, macho culture in the trek franchise celebrated when she married one of them and sent her to Sto'vo'kor (heaven) when she died.
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
I think if we combine the two we get Iain M. Banks' Surface Detail which basically features people trapped in computer simulated versions of hell.
There are so many potential ramifications - just one is immortality. Others are less pleasing, as you say
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
* Although I disagree with @Cyclefree's gender-critical stance (and the way it can sometimes overwhelm her articles), I don't have a problem with her writing articles for PB and I hope she continues to do so * On International Women's Day, you might want to read this article by Alice Evans, which focusses on the international aspect, highlighting the different obstacles faced by women across different continents and regions: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/06/what-people-get-wrong-about-womens-rights * I would have to turn in my Star Trek card if I did not post the graphic below
On Star Trek - should be noted that there was some ghastly behaviour by the show runners toward ms women on DS9 and Voyager.
Show runner in the singular. Only Rick Bermann was ever implicated though by multiple women so absolutely not minimising it. The bastard alienated Terry Farrel and we lost 16 appearances by Jadzia in the final season which her team were ready to do. That could have been Jadzia going back to Trill/Earth/Starfleet command for a few episodes, a few episodes of spent on their honeymoon. One focussed entirely on torturing O'Brien where she wouldn't be in it anyway. They could easily have got it down to 8 fewer episodes for her and kept the character and Worf's marriage arc which really seemed like a perfect ending for his character.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
* Although I disagree with @Cyclefree's gender-critical stance (and the way it can sometimes overwhelm her articles), I don't have a problem with her writing articles for PB and I hope she continues to do so * On International Women's Day, you might want to read this article by Alice Evans, which focusses on the international aspect, highlighting the different obstacles faced by women across different continents and regions: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/06/what-people-get-wrong-about-womens-rights * I would have to turn in my Star Trek card if I did not post the graphic below
On Star Trek - should be noted that there was some ghastly behaviour by the show runners toward ms women on DS9 and Voyager.
Fair enough, and the history of women actors' treatment in the franchise is the history of sexism: witness the treatment of, say, Gates McFadden or Terry Farrell. And the graphic has a condescending message at the bottom which I didn't read. But for a genre so often dismissive of women, the Star Trek franchise featured many women in elevated positions, more than other contemporaneous series did.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Maybe you should get better educated and listen to Cyclefree then?
I assure you that marrying a trans woman was a better education - and a great deal more fun - than you will ever experience, my middle-of-nowhere-dwelling, suburbanite, car-obsessed, bootlicking chum. Don't you have a retail park to be driving to, or an illegal war to be justifying?
I would just say @Cyclefree is well respected and entitiled to publish on a subject she has views on, no matter how controversial
You make a fair and interesting response, and so much better than trying to close down debate
And I am sure we wish @Cyclefree all the best in her serious health battle
It's just an extraordinary yawn, isn't it? "The law says this, therefore we must obey it..."
For most of British history, homosexuality was illegal but slavery was legal - what is *the law* is not the same as what is right or in keeping with societal norms. And an argument that fails to engage with that - repeatedly - is just the boring Sunday afternoon repeat we've heard over and over on this site over and over. For heaven's sake, there are other TERF adjacent sites to publish such (let's say the line) vapid bilge on.
If someone wants to make the case for stripping a bunch of people's rights from them which they have held since the 2004 GRA then make the case for it, morally. Don't just say "it's the law". That is not the locus of political debate.
The law needs to be obeyed but the law can also be an ass, as the Supreme Court came close to conceding when it said, to the effect, our job is to interpret the law - if you don't like it, change the law.
The government clearly has no intention of changing the law - a hornet's nest - but can't provide sensible guidance without changing the law, precisely because it is an ass
On Government definition of islamophobia, I don't see a problem given it has the same for anti-Semitism. But maybe we don't need either?
It seems that antisemitism and islamophobia have a sort of seesaw dynamic. Whenever one of them is in the spotlight the people who are particularly concerned about the other one become irritated and upset.
I would hope we agree anti-Semitism and islamophobia are both bad and need challenging. I'm curious whether official definitions are useful in reducing hate, but if they are, why would you have one, not the other?
Curiously relevant to the header a friend is both trans and Jewish, so they get double doses of discrimination.
Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward
Sensible to dial down the rhetoric
He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support' Our humiliation is almost complere
Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.
Not for the first time i may be wrong or i may be right May the road rise with me
Do you frequently find yourself energised by a general sense of anger? I get the sense that you do.
I saw the Top of the Pops performance of that song the other day. I absolutely loved TOTP as a kid, and remember seeing the video to Rise on it at the time, but there isn’t a programme that has aged as badly. The conceit of grown ups miming and acting that way just looks so stupid nowadays
Yes, not the music but the cheesy, rather patronising presentation. Miss it though.
I feel the same when I see Liam Gallagher giving it the big one. All that ‘come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough’ attitude while he’s singing about eggmen coo-coo cachoo… is it me getting old or is it a bit silly?
I've always found Liam's persona a bit tiresome tbh with you. Even while liking (loving in a couple of cases) the songs of his brother that he sings so well.
Thanks cyclefree for the header. The government's approach to inquiries is not surprising, but it is reprehensible, and it's important to keep on calling it out as such.
The normal business of government in liberal democracies does not seem to be particularly healthy. Is it any wonder that the people grow discontented?
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
IT is an insult. It is absolutely an insult and it is designed to be used as such. A blunt nasty-sounding four letter word, in the classic Anglo Saxon tradition
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
That's the new 'faggots'.
There isn't a direct read across. 'Faggots' is a derogatory term. 'Men in dresses' is a bald statement of fact, but probably deployed to offend.
Its equivalent would therefore be more like 'homosexuals'. An equivalent of 'faggots' would be something like 'trannies'.
A faggot is a black country delicacy.
Made of pork liver, shoulder, heart and fat, wrapped I caul fat.
It is not a derogatory term at all, a wholesome food
Well yes. I am all for it ceasing to be a term used to describe gay people and being reclaimed as a food.
I have never tried faggots. Don't think before this I knew what was in them. They do sound offaly good.
Try some
Not mass produced though by Brains.
Your local butcher will probably make them.
A nice potato , sweet potato and suede mash with a touch of horseradish and gravy on a cold day is a delight.
Some have them with peas aka pays in the Black Country
I adore haggis, but that has a bit of cereal (oats) to break up the clagginess of the heart lungs and liver. That would be my only reservation. They only have the Brain's version in my local supermarket. Not sure I'm bold enough to ask for that in my local butchers.
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
And one day, the petri dish will write travel articles
I think if we combine the two we get Iain M. Banks' Surface Detail which basically features people trapped in computer simulated versions of hell.
Which reminds me. If anybody suggests resurrecting me post-death as a software simulation, simulacra, agent, whatever...please tell them to fuck off. There a good reasons why people should have limited lifespans and immortality is a snare, not a gift.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
Calm down mate, don't get the stockings and suspenders you're wearing while you wrote that in a twist...
You seem to regard it as "competing" rights but the vast majority of women don't agree with you. Cf Kelly v Leonardo, or the numerous WI branches (including the substantial Manchester branch) that have shut their doors rather than obey a lawfare-imposed diktat that excludes trans women. Perhaps we could try listening to women for once?
A reminder: Cyclefree may be the only woman who posts here (not quite, honorable mentions must go to Moonrabbit's excellent work on Chagos and others who clearly provide great value to the site!), but Cyclefree's opinions no more represent mainstream female opinion than Max or Leon represent all male opinion.
Well you do like to drone on about lived experience and my lived experience is that the women around me are far more aligned with Cyclefree's views than with yours.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?
Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
You know, I think you've inspired me to write a PB header on the topic.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
It's a form of ad hominem. It doesn't remotely reflect her position, and well you know it.
Personally speaking, the issue bores me fuckless, but I know bullshitters and ideologues when I see them - and she's not one of them.
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Maybe you should get better educated and listen to Cyclefree then?
I assure you that marrying a trans woman was a better education - and a great deal more fun - than you will ever experience, my middle-of-nowhere-dwelling, suburbanite, car-obsessed, bootlicking chum. Don't you have a retail park to be driving to, or an illegal war to be justifying?
I would just say @Cyclefree is well respected and entitiled to publish on a subject she has views on, no matter how controversial
You make a fair and interesting response, and so much better than trying to close down debate
And I am sure we wish @Cyclefree all the best in her serious health battle
It's just an extraordinary yawn, isn't it? "The law says this, therefore we must obey it..."
For most of British history, homosexuality was illegal but slavery was legal - what is *the law* is not the same as what is right or in keeping with societal norms. And an argument that fails to engage with that - repeatedly - is just the boring Sunday afternoon repeat we've heard over and over on this site over and over. For heaven's sake, there are other TERF adjacent sites to publish such (let's say the line) vapid bilge on.
If someone wants to make the case for stripping a bunch of people's rights from them which they have held since the 2004 GRA then make the case for it, morally. Don't just say "it's the law". That is not the locus of political debate.
The law needs to be obeyed but the law can also be an ass, as the Supreme Court came close to conceding when it said, to the effect, our job is to interpret the law - if you don't like it, change the law.
The government clearly has no intention of changing the law - a hornet's nest - but can't provide sensible guidance without changing the law, precisely because it is an ass
On Government definition of islamophobia, I don't see a problem given it has the same for anti-Semitism. But maybe we don't need either?
It seems that antisemitism and islamophobia have a sort of seesaw dynamic. Whenever one of them is in the spotlight the people who are particularly concerned about the other one become irritated and upset.
I would hope we agree anti-Semitism and islamophobia are both bad and need challenging. I'm curious whether official definitions are useful in reducing hate, but if they are, why would you have one, not the other?
Curiously relevant to the header a friend is both trans and Jewish, so they get double doses of discrimination.
In large parts of the UK hidden but thriving are ties between moderate synagogues and mosques supporting each other, talking and understanding.
It gets hidden, it's not news, as it's not what news wants to report. The media, mostly right leaning wants to demonise collaborative ideas like this.
Likewise in the West Midlands in particular where I originate from the Sikhs are wonderfully active especially in charity and care sectors.
Old tensions between the afro Caribbean and Muslim groups have eased too.
It is the white right that are the main aggressors now.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
A descriptor can be an insult too.
And again no answer to the question. Huge.
To answer your question, according to the latest high court ruling (GLP v EHRC) my partner (deceased) would no longer be allowed to use the female toilets at work, despite being in possession of a cracking pair of double D's and a fabulous C-word (do dm me if you'd like to see a photo of it, though if you really want to see one, just look in the mirror).
She would be forced to out herself as trans to all her co-workers by using gender neutral toilets, dismissed as "office gossip" by the judge in said case, potentially placing her life at risk (I have witnessed violence against trans women). Those are the rights she has lost. Rights she was guaranteed as a woman with a GRC under the GRA (2004) but have been taken away on a technicality.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
That's the new 'faggots'.
There isn't a direct read across. 'Faggots' is a derogatory term. 'Men in dresses' is a bald statement of fact, but probably deployed to offend.
Its equivalent would therefore be more like 'homosexuals'. An equivalent of 'faggots' would be something like 'trannies'.
A faggot is a black country delicacy.
Made of pork liver, shoulder, heart and fat, wrapped I caul fat.
It is not a derogatory term at all, a wholesome food
Well yes. I am all for it ceasing to be a term used to describe gay people and being reclaimed as a food.
I have never tried faggots. Don't think before this I knew what was in them. They do sound offaly good.
Try some
Not mass produced though by Brains.
Your local butcher will probably make them.
A nice potato , sweet potato and suede mash with a touch of horseradish and gravy on a cold day is a delight.
Some have them with peas aka pays in the Black Country
I adore haggis, but that has a bit of cereal (oats) to break up the clagginess of the heart lungs and liver. That would be my only reservation. They only have the Brain's version in my local supermarket. Not sure I'm bold enough to ask for that in my local butchers.
You should try faggots. They are absolutely delicious. Eat them with proper meaty onion gravy, good buttery mash, and peas and red cabbage. Yum!
Robin Brooks @robin_j_brooks · 5h We already know the winner in the war with Iran and that's Russia. The closure of the Straits of Hormuz has swung Russian crude from pariah to prized commodity. Urals oil price is the highest since right after the Ukraine invasion. Putin is loving this...
Exactly so. It increasingly looks that if you could design an act that would maximise the help for Russia, short of directly supplying them with money and weapons, it would be this war on Iran.
The scale of the catastrophe it represents for Ukraine is immense.
Already we hear the call for financial support to be provided by European governments in a futile attempt to defy the tide of inflation, and this will further reduce the support Ukraine can expect to receive.
I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.
I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it? , Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.
I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.
It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.
I have never said that their 'existence' is something to be debated or argued about. As usual when you find your rather extremist views challenged you fall back on simple smears and lies. The argument, as it has always been in Cyclefree's pieces, is about the where the competing boundaries between rights should be set. Should Trans rights trump Women's rights? Should the laws we have governing the way we treat children be modified simply to satisfy an extremist Trans lobby? You continue to make clear with your TERF references that you oppose anyone who might suggest that the Trans lived experience and rights have to balanced with the the lived experience and rights of other groups. That is extremism and it serves both your arguments and the Trans community very badly.
Kyf's not on the extreme end. Eg he doesn't support self-ID (which several countries have btw). Cyclefree's position is actually the more extreme of the two.
I disagree. @Cyclefree has not, to my knowledge ever expressed any reservations about people choosing to live as the opposite to their biological gender. Her problem, and mine, is when their attempts to do so conflict with the hard won rights of women to protect themselves from predatory men. Her position, with which I agree, is that in those scenarios the rights of women must prevail even if that makes trans women very unhappy.
So, for example, this means that a trans doctor had no right to insist on using a female changing room where the likes of Peggie was changing for work. People who are biologically men do not get into women's prisons where many of the most vulnerable women in our society are. A trans woman, who remains a biological man, is not entitled to access to refuges for battered women where many of the residents find any man terrifying because of the horrific way they have been treated. And, on a completely different scale of importance, trans women who had the benefit of male levels of testosterone during puberty and early life are not entitled to compete against women because it simply isn't fair.
None of this, absolutely none, means that people with gender dysphoria, should not be treated sympathetically and supportively. None of it means that they cannot live as women, dress as women, adopt women's names, marry as women and generally given the respect and support that society should give anyone in society who has an issue. My reservations about the FWS decision is that the SC basically repealed s9 of the GRA which said that a certificate should have effect "for all purposes." I think in some respects (and these are my thoughts, not @Cyclefree's) the SC went too far but on the fundamental principle of which prevails when women's rights and trans rights come into conflict they were correct and so is @Cyclefree.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
There are various definitions of trans rights, some of which I don't understand and/or agree with.
The one I use in my head is "the right to acquire one or more characteristics of the opposite sex and have that recognised by the state and in public".
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
A descriptor can be an insult too.
And again no answer to the question. Huge.
To answer your question, according to the latest high court ruling (GLP v EHRC) my partner (deceased) would no longer be allowed to use the female toilets at work, despite being in possession of a cracking pair of double D's and a fabulous C-word (do dm me if you'd like to see a photo of it, though if you really want to see one, just look in the mirror).
She would be forced to out herself as trans to all her co-workers by using gender neutral toilets, dismissed as "office gossip" by the judge in said case, potentially placing her life at risk (I have witnessed violence against trans women). Those are the rights she has lost. Rights she was guaranteed as a woman with a GRC under the GRA (2004) but have been taken away on a technicality.
You do love your insults. I wish you and you partner nothing but joy, genuinely. Finding the right person to be with is brilliant. You extrapolate an awful lot from them being unable to use toilets that they wish too. If I have it right, using a gender neutral toilet means someone is going to attempt to murder them.
Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.
Maybe you should get better educated and listen to Cyclefree then?
I assure you that marrying a trans woman was a better education - and a great deal more fun - than you will ever experience, my middle-of-nowhere-dwelling, suburbanite, car-obsessed, bootlicking chum. Don't you have a retail park to be driving to, or an illegal war to be justifying?
I would just say @Cyclefree is well respected and entitiled to publish on a subject she has views on, no matter how controversial
You make a fair and interesting response, and so much better than trying to close down debate
And I am sure we wish @Cyclefree all the best in her serious health battle
It's just an extraordinary yawn, isn't it? "The law says this, therefore we must obey it..."
For most of British history, homosexuality was illegal but slavery was legal - what is *the law* is not the same as what is right or in keeping with societal norms. And an argument that fails to engage with that - repeatedly - is just the boring Sunday afternoon repeat we've heard over and over on this site over and over. For heaven's sake, there are other TERF adjacent sites to publish such (let's say the line) vapid bilge on.
If someone wants to make the case for stripping a bunch of people's rights from them which they have held since the 2004 GRA then make the case for it, morally. Don't just say "it's the law". That is not the locus of political debate.
The law needs to be obeyed but the law can also be an ass, as the Supreme Court came close to conceding when it said, to the effect, our job is to interpret the law - if you don't like it, change the law.
The government clearly has no intention of changing the law - a hornet's nest - but can't provide sensible guidance without changing the law, precisely because it is an ass
On Government definition of islamophobia, I don't see a problem given it has the same for anti-Semitism. But maybe we don't need either?
It seems that antisemitism and islamophobia have a sort of seesaw dynamic. Whenever one of them is in the spotlight the people who are particularly concerned about the other one become irritated and upset.
I would hope we agree anti-Semitism and islamophobia are both bad and need challenging. I'm curious whether official definitions are useful in reducing hate, but if they are, why would you have one, not the other?
Curiously relevant to the header a friend is both trans and Jewish, so they get double doses of discrimination.
Well yes. A rise in antisemitism is no argument for being relaxed about islamophobia and vice versa.
Robin Brooks @robin_j_brooks · 5h We already know the winner in the war with Iran and that's Russia. The closure of the Straits of Hormuz has swung Russian crude from pariah to prized commodity. Urals oil price is the highest since right after the Ukraine invasion. Putin is loving this...
Exactly so. It increasingly looks that if you could design an act that would maximise the help for Russia, short of directly supplying them with money and weapons, it would be this war on Iran.
The scale of the catastrophe it represents for Ukraine is immense.
Already we hear the call for financial support to be provided by European governments in a futile attempt to defy the tide of inflation, and this will further reduce the support Ukraine can expect to receive.
There is no reason for Starmer to offer any more support to Trump in Iran than Trump has offered Starmer and others in Ukraine.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
IT is an insult. It is absolutely an insult and it is designed to be used as such. A blunt nasty-sounding four letter word, in the classic Anglo Saxon tradition
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
Doom is great - though apparently it looks worse on modern screens than it did back in the day on CRTs, but the petri dish platter should ask for the upgrade to playing Quake.
If one really wants to go retro then there's always Wolfenstein 3D.
Edit: On the technology, those are exciting developments. Technology is great, and will provide us with tools to improve our lives. Our problem is generally with the social organisation to ensure that as many people benefit as possible.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
IT is an insult. It is absolutely an insult and it is designed to be used as such. A blunt nasty-sounding four letter word, in the classic Anglo Saxon tradition
"You fucking TERF"
Stop being disingenuous
"You fucking NAZI"
Stop being disingenuous.
or, I dunno, stop being a nazi?
You are not winning anyone over.
I suggest you change the subject before you embarrass yourself.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
There are various definitions of trans rights, some of which I don't understand and/or agree with.
The one I use in my head is "the right to acquire one or more characteristics of the opposite sex and have that recognised by the state and in public".
I'm sure nobody will argue with that
The issue is with men in women’s only spaces, be they prisons, nurses changing rooms or schoolgirls changing rooms. Simply saying “I’m trans “ought not give any man the right to do that. What are the characteristics of a woman?
What is likely to happen with oil and gas prices in the morning? West Texas Intermediate was trading at $90 and Brent Crude at $92.69 a barrel according to Bloomberg.
Will we see any American effort to re-open Hormuz before the markets start trading or are looking at near $100 a barrel in the morning?
At my local Tesco's, basic fuel has risen 6p since this started with Diesel up at £1.47 a litre. No queuing this afternoon and I'm assuming as long as supplies are perceived to be in place, people will grin and fork out the extra.
Well done Kyf. A couple of posts from then heart. Worth all of the anodyne rubbish put together. I would like to try to answer your first question but I have no answer. Some people like the subject and want to be prescriptive is the best I can do. I hope you weren't too offended.
Aww, thanks. I met the then to be Mrs. Kyf long before I ever posted on PB, and it never occurred to me that her existence might one day be a debated topic here. Theresa May as PM advocated self-ID. Anne Widdecombe, of all people, has written in GB news, of all places, that trans women should be treated as women.
Hence: I don't think it's a left/right issue - it's one of common decency. Regrettably, it's both fascinating and noteworthy that the people whose views on the topic (e.g. barty favouring carpet bombing the middle east) seem to treat others as subhuman as well.
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
Doom is great - though apparently it looks worse on modern screens than it did back in the day on CRTs, but the petri dish platter should ask for the upgrade to playing Quake.
If one really wants to go retro then there's always Wolfenstein 3D.
Edit: On the technology, those are exciting developments. Technology is great, and will provide us with tools to improve our lives. Our problem is generally with the social organisation to ensure that as many people benefit as possible.
I have nothing to add to the debate. Except to say that anybody who refers to "men in dresses" should be roundly ignored.
It's a complex debate, but utilising that phrase in it is a pretty good indicator someone is not entering into that debate in a reasonable manner by oversimplifying it.
Fair if people object to the phrase men in dresses. I’d suggest looking upthread to where the insults began - Cyclefree called a terf. My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
TERF is an abbreviation of trans exclusionary radical feminist. Are you suggesting that the terms "trans exclusionary" don't apply to Cyclcefree's (second wave, i.e. radical feminism). Huge if true.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
A descriptor can be an insult too.
And again no answer to the question. Huge.
To answer your question, according to the latest high court ruling (GLP v EHRC) my partner (deceased) would no longer be allowed to use the female toilets at work, despite being in possession of a cracking pair of double D's and a fabulous C-word (do dm me if you'd like to see a photo of it, though if you really want to see one, just look in the mirror).
She would be forced to out herself as trans to all her co-workers by using gender neutral toilets, dismissed as "office gossip" by the judge in said case, potentially placing her life at risk (I have witnessed violence against trans women). Those are the rights she has lost. Rights she was guaranteed as a woman with a GRC under the GRA (2004) but have been taken away on a technicality.
You do love your insults. I wish you and you partner nothing but joy, genuinely. Finding the right person to be with is brilliant. You extrapolate an awful lot from them being unable to use toilets that they wish too. If I have it right, using a gender neutral toilet means someone is going to attempt to murder them.
Reminder: She committed suicide. While it's considered unetthical, medically, to ascribe a suicide to a particular reason (and the circumstances leading up to hers were horrible), one does not have a ten year relationship with someone without a certain understanding of the factors that led up to it.
She lived with the kind of transphobic BS I see posted here every day, every day. It costs nothing to treat trans women as women. The kind of language used here, on a daily basis, can cost people their lives.
Comments
Next a Malinois from Belgium - nice they’re not all collies - agile, but five faults already
Next collie, run by Martin with Shape, also super fast, but five faults already
Last competitor, Sara with Bliss..looking good..but five faults, so that’s it - Banter in his opening run set a standard the others couldn’t beat.
Dogs are such wankers
One of the interesting things about the closure of the Tavistock is that the wave of lawsuits that the anti-Trans lobby were salivating over never appeared. There have only been a handful, and most of those were about delayed access to care.
Robin Brooks
@robin_j_brooks
·
5h
We already know the winner in the war with Iran and that's Russia. The closure of the Straits of Hormuz has swung Russian crude from pariah to prized commodity. Urals oil price is the highest since right after the Ukraine invasion. Putin is loving this...
https://x.com/robin_j_brooks/status/2030619408486334479
The purpose of the Equality Act is to prevent discrimination on sex. As discrimination is generally a bad thing, I would amend the Act so the same general prohibition on discrimination would apply to gender as well. You would not, for example, be allowed to pay trans people less for the same job.
The Act does allow discrimination on sex under defined conditions, for example sports, education etc. Where this discrimination is optional on sex I would also allow optional discrimination on gender. ie sporting bodies, refuges, Women's Institute etc can take their own decisions about whether to admit trans people - if you don't like the decision, you take your objections to the institutions governing body and, importantly, don't resort to the courts.
In a few cases discrimination is mandated. I suggest the Act should require the Government to provide regulatory guidance on how that discrimination on sex and gender is to be applied. This covers situations like prisons.
It would be a balanced approach. Not particularly trans friendly but that's where British public opinion is on this issue I think. Other countries are considerably more liberal.
But of course nothing sensible will be done precisely because of those vested interests.
Thats what makes them better than all other creatures
Hence: I don't think it's a left/right issue - it's one of common decency. Regrettably, it's both fascinating and noteworthy that the people whose views on the topic (e.g. barty favouring carpet bombing the middle east) seem to treat others as subhuman as well.
Instructive as always: https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
There are any number of adjective that describe Starmer... all building up to the fact that he is not up to the job.
What a sorry state that the alternatives are even worse.
I also wonder if identifying as a woman is a thing, why not as a toddler, or a person of colour? Or a sheep?
I feel for trans people. I suspect that a lot of people with issues who just want a quiet life are suffering the backlash caused by a bunch of probably fetishistic men
I'm just pointing out that it is a tiny bit simplistic to say that everyone is XX or XY, because there is a meaningful percentage of the population (0.2-0.3%) who are not. And then I was musing about what what if there turned out to be genetic markers that correlated strongly with being trans.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't surprise me if there were markers. But as far as I know no one has looked for any yet: largely because neither of the most vocal groups on this debate want to find out if there is a particular genetic predisoposition. The trans lobby, because it cuts away at self ID. And the anti-trans lobby, because it would mean there was a genetic marker that indicated people were likely to feel a certain way.
Its not immutable stuff on stone tablets
But apparently that's a fascist perspective so what do I know.
Let's see what the Ukrainians have to say about that... They might not stop it, but they will give it a flamin' go....
No, not the subject I am disallowed from talking about
This:
"Nobody wants to hear this but it needs to be said.
> Scientists just copied a fruit fly's brain into a computer. Neuron by neuron. No training data. No machine learning.
> It woke up and started walking. No one taught it to walk. No one trained it. No gradient descent. It just... knew what to do...."
https://x.com/MAstronomers/status/2030294901695361444?s=20
This means your brain, any brain, a totally blank new humam brain. can now - or soon - be copied to a machine (it's just scaling from here). Or it can be copied to a machine in virtual reality. Maybe it already is, and we are in The Sim
ON THE SAME DAY WE LEARNED THIS:
"A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM
https://x.com/ChronosIntelX/status/2030319275991515411?s=20
"Let me explain what just happened, because I don’t think people realize how INSANE this is.
> Cortical Labs put 200,000 real human brain cells onto a silicon chip and trained them to play Doom in just one week.
> Each CL1 system costs $35,000.
> A rack of 30 units consumes only 850–1,000 watts combined.
> The human brain operates on 20 watts....
> Cortical Labs is selling “Wetware as a Service” through Cortical Cloud, letting developers deploy code remotely to living human neurons with no lab required,
> priced like a software subscription but powered by real brain cells grown from adult skin and blood samples.
> it isn’t about gaming, it’s about biological computing that could eventually outperform traditional silicon in energy efficiency and adaptability.
This is getting really scary and we’re still at the very beginning."
Has anyone asked the guy trapped in the petri dish if he's OK with all this? Does he actually enjoy Doom?
You seem to regard it as "competing" rights but the vast majority of women don't agree with you. Cf Kelly v Leonardo, or the numerous WI branches (including the substantial Manchester branch) that have shut their doors rather than obey a lawfare-imposed diktat that excludes trans women. Perhaps we could try listening to women for once?
A reminder: Cyclefree may be the only woman who posts here (not quite, honorable mentions must go to Moonrabbit's excellent work on Chagos and others who clearly provide great value to the site!), but Cyclefree's opinions no more represent mainstream female opinion than Max or Leon represent all male opinion.
And yet somehow the debate is driven by a tiny percentage of extremist nutters who are horribly aggressive and have managed to capture multiple institutions with their lunacy., And thousands of children have suffered as a result
https://x.com/i/status/2030699764107633109
Strangely, not as part of the PR work package. Just as something 'i should get into'
Where it is complicated, sadly, is that the average wait time to even receive a diagnosis on the NHS is 12 years. My partner got her diagnosis at 19 (she had already been through "the system" as a child) and had SRS in her late 20s. So if we assume we no longer treat "trans" kids because it's "political", one would have to come out to the NHS at 18, wait 12 years for an appointment, and another 8-10 before SRS. So even if you came out at 18, you would not be "a woman" until middle age.
So: while my views are transmedicalist, they are predicated on a trans woman being able to access hormones and surgery within an reasonable timeframe. Not coming out as a teenager and being stuck in limbo until middle age.
The radical activists tried to get a maximalist solution that called men bigots for not wanting to date transgender women and tried to cancel lesbians for not wanting to date biological men along with access to single sex spaces for men who hadn't undergone sex change surgery and still had male organs, full beards and were visibly male.
Unsurprisingly this has backfired on them and today genuine transgender people have fewer rights than they started with before this whole saga, which is the real tragedy in all of this IMO.
All my love x
Am busy, so cannot contribute much. Commentary is
* Although I disagree with @Cyclefree's gender-critical stance (and the way it can sometimes overwhelm her articles), I don't have a problem with her writing articles for PB and I hope she continues to do so
* On International Women's Day, you might want to read this article by Alice Evans, which focusses on the international aspect, highlighting the different obstacles faced by women across different continents and regions: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/06/what-people-get-wrong-about-womens-rights
* I would have to turn in my Star Trek card if I did not post the graphic below
He subcontracts it to the International Court of Justice.
If only PB was more like Trek.
I agree with Tony.
What a time to be alive
My substantive point remains.What rights have trans men or women lost?
Its equivalent would therefore be more like 'homosexuals'. An equivalent of 'faggots' would be something like 'trannies'.
Made of pork liver, shoulder, heart and fat, wrapped I caul fat.
It is not a derogatory term at all, a wholesome food
I have never tried faggots. Don't think before this I knew what was in them. They do sound offaly good.
TERF isn't an insult, it's a descriptor. That you ascribe shame to the word says a great deal about the beliefs commonly associated with it.
And again no answer to the question. Huge.
Not mass produced though by Brains.
Your local butcher will probably make them.
A nice potato , sweet potato and suede mash with a touch of horseradish and gravy on a cold day is a delight.
Some have them with peas aka pays in the Black Country
Curiously relevant to the header a friend is both trans and Jewish, so they get double doses of discrimination.
The normal business of government in liberal democracies does not seem to be particularly healthy. Is it any wonder that the people grow discontented?
"You fucking TERF"
Stop being disingenuous
Personally speaking, the issue bores me fuckless, but I know bullshitters and ideologues when I see them - and she's not one of them.
Next.
It gets hidden, it's not news, as it's not what news wants to report. The media, mostly right leaning wants to demonise collaborative ideas like this.
Likewise in the West Midlands in particular where I originate from the Sikhs are wonderfully active especially in charity and care sectors.
Old tensions between the afro Caribbean and Muslim groups have eased too.
It is the white right that are the main aggressors now.
She would be forced to out herself as trans to all her co-workers by using gender neutral toilets, dismissed as "office gossip" by the judge in said case, potentially placing her life at risk (I have witnessed violence against trans women). Those are the rights she has lost. Rights she was guaranteed as a woman with a GRC under the GRA (2004) but have been taken away on a technicality.
The scale of the catastrophe it represents for Ukraine is immense.
Already we hear the call for financial support to be provided by European governments in a futile attempt to defy the tide of inflation, and this will further reduce the support Ukraine can expect to receive.
It's had the song I kissed my first girlfriend to, and has essentially the soundtrack to my A-Levels.
Ah, memories. So long ago, and yet so vivid.
So, for example, this means that a trans doctor had no right to insist on using a female changing room where the likes of Peggie was changing for work. People who are biologically men do not get into women's prisons where many of the most vulnerable women in our society are. A trans woman, who remains a biological man, is not entitled to access to refuges for battered women where many of the residents find any man terrifying because of the horrific way they have been treated. And, on a completely different scale of importance, trans women who had the benefit of male levels of testosterone during puberty and early life are not entitled to compete against women because it simply isn't fair.
None of this, absolutely none, means that people with gender dysphoria, should not be treated sympathetically and supportively. None of it means that they cannot live as women, dress as women, adopt women's names, marry as women and generally given the respect and support that society should give anyone in society who has an issue. My reservations about the FWS decision is that the SC basically repealed s9 of the GRA which said that a certificate should have effect "for all purposes." I think in some respects (and these are my thoughts, not @Cyclefree's) the SC went too far but on the fundamental principle of which prevails when women's rights and trans rights come into conflict they were correct and so is @Cyclefree.
You extrapolate an awful lot from them being unable to use toilets that they wish too. If I have it right, using a gender neutral toilet means someone is going to attempt to murder them.
Stop being disingenuous.
or, I dunno, stop being a nazi?
If one really wants to go retro then there's always Wolfenstein 3D.
Edit: On the technology, those are exciting developments. Technology is great, and will provide us with tools to improve our lives. Our problem is generally with the social organisation to ensure that as many people benefit as possible.
I suggest you change the subject before you embarrass yourself.
What are the characteristics of a woman?
Completely off topic.
What is likely to happen with oil and gas prices in the morning? West Texas Intermediate was trading at $90 and Brent Crude at $92.69 a barrel according to Bloomberg.
Will we see any American effort to re-open Hormuz before the markets start trading or are looking at near $100 a barrel in the morning?
At my local Tesco's, basic fuel has risen 6p since this started with Diesel up at £1.47 a litre. No queuing this afternoon and I'm assuming as long as supplies are perceived to be in place, people will grin and fork out the extra.
She lived with the kind of transphobic BS I see posted here every day, every day. It costs nothing to treat trans women as women. The kind of language used here, on a daily basis, can cost people their lives.